Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

WATFORD CORPORATION BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

New Sub-Office, Hartlepool

Commander Kerans: asked the Postmaster-General when he expects to start work on the new sub-post office in King Oswy Drive, Hartlepool, recently approved by his Department.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Ray Mawby): I hope the new sub-post office will be open within the next month; but I should explain to my hon. and gallant Friend that we expect the office to go in one of the local shops and that there is no question of putting up a new building.

Commander Kerans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for speeding up the work on this post office, which is long overdue and is something which my constituents, especially the old folk, very much need and deserve.

Mail Deliveries, Inverness-Kyle of Lochalsh (Proposed Railway Closures)

Mr. Stodart: asked the Postmaster-General what plans he is making to deliver the 220,000 sacks of mail which are

at present carried each year by rail between Inverness and Kyle of Lochalsh, in view of the fact that that line has recommended for closure to passenger services.

Mr. Mawby: We cannot make firm plans until we know what alternative transport services will be available if the line is closed; but we have reviewed the position generaly and expect, in any event, to be able largely to maintain the present standards of postal services in this area.

Mr. Stodart: Does my hon. Friend realise that 220,000 sacks of mail per annum are, if one excludes the Sabbath day for delivery, the equivalent of roughly 700 sacks per day? Can he say how many lorries would be required to carry this quantity on road transport, and has he considered the state of the roads in the district to carry the traffic?

Mr. Mawby: I cannot make that calculation at this moment. We have taken into account that it will, obviously, require additional road vehicles, and we are bearing in mind the points which my hon. Friend makes.

Mr. Mason: Have the Government made a general appraisal of the effects of the Beeching proposals? If the Postmaster-General has done it for Scotland, has he done it for the rest of the country and determined what the effect will be on the postal and parcel services?

Mr. Mawby: We are in process of making a general review of the effects, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we have already, prior to Beeching, been making a number of inquiries. The East Anglian experiment is one designed to take account of changed conditions, and this was instituted before the Beeching Report was published.

Mr. John MacLeod: Can my hon. Friend say what sum of money is paid by the Post Office to the railway in this region of Scotland?

Mr. Mawby: Not without notice.

Mr. Ross: Quite apart from any experiment in East Anglia, an area which, I understand, has the advantage of some roads, what particular consideration has the Minister given to what will happen in Scotland? What will be the cost, what will be the number of lorries


involved, and will there be the regular service which is available now?

Mr. Mawby: We do not expect the costs to be any higher for us in transporting by alternative methods.

Mr. Ross: What about the capital cost of providing roads?

Christmas Card, Nassau (Non-Delivery)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that a Christmas card, sent from London by air-mail to an address in Nassau in December, 1959, was returned to the sender on 25th April, 1963, the envelope being marked unclaimed and bearing three Nassau postmarks dated, respectively, 6th January, 1960, 12th January, 1960, and 27th April, 1963; if, in view of the fact that, after a delay of more than three years, this communication was returned to the sender in London two days before the date of the latest Nassau postmark, he will obtain from the Bahamian postal authorities an explanation of these phenomena; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mawby: I am informed by the Bahamas postal authorities that this Christmas card was twice delivered to the club to which it was addressed but each time it was unclaimed by the person for whom it was intended and returned to the Nassau Post Office. This would account for the 1960 postmarks. There was no obligation on the Bahamas postal authorities then to return the card to the sender in this country, and I regret that, without further information—which I am seeking and on which I will write to the hon. Member—I cannot explain why they decided to do so and why they took so long. I understand that the postmark of 27th April, 1963, was due to an error in setting the date-stamp in the Nassau Post Office.

Mr. Driberg: While thanking the Assistant Postmaster-General for having investigated what may seem to be a relatively trivial matter, may I ask him whether he would agree that it would not be so trivial if this kind of thing happened often? Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there are many delays and errors in the Nassau Post Office? Is there general chaos there?

Mr. Mawby: As I said, I have looked into this and I cannot see any evidence

that this is a general happening. The probable result of the hon. Gentleman's Question is that even this sort of isolated incident will not happen again.

Shipley and Bingley

Mr. Hirst: asked the Postmaster-General what steps he proposes to take to ensure an adequate Post Office service in the towns of Shipley and Bingley.

Mr. Mawby: I understand that my hon. Friend is concerned about the recent reduction in the hours of business at the main post offices in Shipley and Bingley. The change was made because the relatively small amount of business transacted in the first and last half-hours of the day did not justify the expense of keeping open the offices. I feel sure that a few months' experience of the new arrangements will show that they are causing no real inconvenience.

Mr. Hirst: We know all that, but is my hon. Friend aware that people who are working normal working hours should have facilities at any post office between 5.30 and 6.30 p.m., and will my hon. Friend communicate to his right hon. Friend that he ought to seek to ensure that the Post Office gives an adequate public service? It is in that regard that it is failing.

Mr. Mawby: I can understand my hon. Friend's point of view, but it is important to point out that in these hours it has been noticed that the amount of business done has borne no relation to the cost of keeping the offices open. At present there are already arrangements whereby a number of people, for instance, with meter franked items and private boxes, have an arrangement by which they can hand in up to 6 o'clock at the sorting offices, and there are also stamp machines at both of the offices. I would, therefore, ask my hon. Friend to give it a few months to find out whether in fact we cannot continue to give a service without trying to provide services which in the main are not paying their way.

Services, North-East Scotland Proposed Railway Closures)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on the effect which railway station closures recommended by the


Beeching Report will have on postal services in north-east Scotland, particularly Aberdeen.

Mr. Mawby: It is too early to say what the precise effects of the railway changes would be on mail services in north-east Scotland, but we believe that we should be able largely to maintain the present standard of service.

Mr. Hughes: That Answer shows that it is always too early or too late for the Government to redeem the promises that were made to Scotland to develop trade, industry and commerce there, much of which depends upon the proper co-ordination not only of the Post Office services but also of the transport services. Will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, consult the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Scotland in order to ensure that that proper co-ordination is achieved and that the trade, industry and commerce and employment of the north of Scotland is developed as the Government promised?

Mr. Mawby: As the hon. and learned Gentleman already knows, my right hon. Friends are not remote from one another and discussions go on regularly, particularly with regard to these problems. The question that the hon. and learned Gentleman asked me does in fact impinge upon our future prospects as a Post Office in performing our service, and I have tried to give him the answer which best suits the question.

Mr. John MacLeod: Does not the Answer to this and the previous Question on the Kyle of Lochalsh show that there was no consultation at all between his Ministry and the Ministry of Transport, and will he say, if there was consultation, what consultation there was?

Mr. Mawby: The normal consultation, of course, is the answer. In this matter, as one must see it, this is a proposal put forward by the chairman of a nationalised board and it is a matter in which a number of consultations will obviously have to take place and are, indeed, taking place. The question relates to our future supplying of a service.

Mr. Manuel: Would the hon. Gentleman give a straight reply to the question that has been asked. What assessment

has taken place, arising from discussions between his right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, the Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State for Scotland? Are they convinced that in these areas where rail closures are to take place they will get the mails through during certain winter months, and are the roads suitable for road delivery and conveyance to replace the present rail conveyance?

Mr. Mawby: So far as we are concerned, we are satisfied that our services will in the main be as reliable—[HON. MEMBERS: "In the main?"]—in the future as in the past. There have been in the past very few occasions on which mails could be carried by rail and not by road.

Housing Scheme, Dumbarton (Cables)

Mr. Steele: asked the Postmaster-General why the request of Dumbarton Town Council to his Department to install cables during the construction of the new road at the same time as the other services are being provided for the new housing scheme at Glenside, Dumbarton, has been turned down.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): I am sorry that the advance provision of telephone cables for the Glenside housing scheme has unfortunately had to be postponed in favour of more urgent work.

Mr. Steele: Surely we have converted the Government to planning. Is it not much better to install these cables at the same time as the other services are being provided and thus avoid the unsightly holes and lines which will have to go up later?

Mr. Bevins: I entirely agree with the hon. Member that on grounds of economy that would be the right way to do it. Unfortunately, it was necessary for the local people to recast their programmes because a greater proportion of their moneys had to be devoted to the expanding trunk services and to meet demands which were already on hand.

Mr. Steele: Will the Postmaster-General look at these services again in view of the need for them to be done at the right time? The added cost incurred here will not be a waste. There will be a saving later.

Mr. Bevins: I am not prepared to promise the hon. Member anything at this date, but I will look at the matter again.

Letter Boxes

Sir B. Janner: asked the Postmaster-General how many pillar boxes in the Metropolitan area, the City of London and Leicester are fitted with 7-inch openings; and, in view of the impossibility of posting larger packages in these boxes, which necessitates having to go to the nearest post office, if he will have all such boxes fitted with larger openings.

Mr. Mawby: The precise figures for which the hon. Member asks are not available. Approximate numbers of street posting boxes with openings of 8 inches or less are 1,000 in the London postal area, including about half-a-dozen in the City of London, and about a dozen in Leicester. I do not think that the replacement of all these boxes would be justified, but if the hon. Member will let me know of any particular case of difficulty I will gladly look into it.

Sir B. Janner: Surely it is not a question of individual cases. Will not the Postmaster-General make some inquiry into this difficulty in general arising from the fact that people cannot get parcels through the letter slots? Cannot he make an inquiry into the whole situation to see whether some other kind of pillar box or letter box can be provided, with larger slots, for example, as in the United States?

Mr. Mawby: We have the present standard sizes for wall and pillar boxes of 10 inches by 1¾ inches and for lamp letter boxes of 8 inches by 1¾ inches. For any replacement, obviously the new size of aperture is followed, but with over 100,000 posting boxes in Great Britain it is difficult suddenly to undertake the replacement of all of them. What we try to do is to make certain that, where there are obvious difficulties, these are the places where replacements are made. If the hon. Member has a particular example in mind, we will look at it.

Vans (Heaters)

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Postmaster-General if he will give the year when all the vans in his Department will possess heaters.

Mr. Mawby: Under present arrangements we would expect one vehicle in two to have a heater within two years from now and that by 1970 practically all vehicles will have been equipped. I regret that I cannot be more precise than this.

Mr. Wainwright: Does the hon. Member think that there will be no more winters until 1970? Is he not aware that in very cold weather men who are driving these vans and who do service and repairs will be far more capable of doing a job if they are working in warm vans or travelling in them? Will he do something for the benefit of the employees?

Mr. Mawby: All our new vehicles are fitted with heaters. We are in the process of fitting heaters to vehicles which still have a good length of active life ahead of them, particularly in cases where they undertake long journeys or are used by staff who would normally have to work through the night. That is the line that we are taking. We hope that we can work as fast as possible in the interests of the comfort of the staff.

Mr. Mason: Will the hon. Member tell the House why the old vans were not originally built with heaters?

Mr. Mawby: I was not there at the time.

Sub-Office, Cofton Hackett

Mr. Dance: asked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement about the future of the post office at Rednal, near Birmingham.

Mr. Mawby: We propose to take advantage of the sub-postmaster's resignation to replace the Rednal Post Office by one in Parsonage Drive, Cofton Hackett. With this change, I think the disposition of sub-offices in the area will be more convenient for the majority of the local residents.

Mr. Dance: I know that my hon. Friend is aware that a Petition has been produced with 300 signatories from Rednal on this question. Is he aware that this office is near a bus stop, that there are a large number of old-age pensioners living in this part of the world who have to go to the office to collect


their old-age pensions and that this decision will cause great hardship? Will he please reconsider the question?

Mr. Mawby: I am always prepared to reconsider anything, but it is important to remember that the original office is in an old cottage which is not part of a recognised shopping centre, whereas the new office will serve an estate of about 300 houses with four shops and a large café. On the surface it looks as though the move may be more convenient for the majority of local residents, but I will look again at the matter affecting my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. Dance: On a point of order. I give notice that I hope to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Communications Tower, Wootton-under-Edge

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Postmaster-General when he expects to make a decision on the siting of the communications tower in the Wootton-under-Edge area of Gloucestershire.

Mr. Mawby: I understand that my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, is at present studying his Inspector's report on the public inquiry, and a decision will be announced soon.

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Postmaster-General what effect the communications tower to be built in the Wootton-under-Edge area of Gloucestershire will have upon radio and television receivers in the immediate vicinity and upon the behaviour of homing pigeons.

Mr. Mawby: This tower will not affect sound broadcasting or television reception in the vicinity, either by its own transmissions or by reflections from its structure. I am sorry I am unable to say what effect the station will have on the behaviour of homing pigeons. The Post Office has many radio stations operating in a manner similar to that proposed for Wootton-under-Edge, and no reports have been received that they adversely affect the homing instinct of those birds.

Mr. Kershaw: Those who are interested in homing pigeons will be gratified by

what my hon. Friend said. But is he quite sure of this, because Fylingdales has had a most unfortunate effect on homing pigeons, which fly round it in ever-decreasing circles? Can he assure us that that will not happen in this case, as I live very close to this machine?

Mr. Mawby: From all my information—and I particularly made special inquiries about this—I am reasonably sure that the emissions from the tower should not affect these birds, and I trust that the reverse will be equally true.

New Office, Shotts

Miss Herbison: asked the Postmaster-General what decision he has reached on the starting date for the Crown post office at Shotts.

Mr. Mawby: We have recently reviewed our building programme, and I hope that it may be possible to make a start on the building in about a year's time.

Miss Herbison: Is it not at all possible to start on the building this year? Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the provision of such a post office might do something to attract new industry to an area desperately in need of it?

Mr. Mawby: I take the hon. Lady's point. It was following her last Question to me that we made this review. I am trying to bring this forward as much as I possibly can. We are doing everything we can to bring forward minor works which can provide employment.

Sub-Office, Saltaire

Mr. Hirst: asked the Postmaster-General when a sub-post office will be provided to serve the needs of Saltaire village, Shipley.

Mr. Mawby: There are two sub-post offices in the vicinity of Saltaire village; and I am sorry that we should not be justified in opening another one.

Mr. Hirst: Is my hon. Friend aware that "in the vicinity of" is not in Saltaire village? Is he also aware that two unsatisfactory Answers from the Post Office in one day is too much? Will he kindly give more attention to this matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Accounts

Mr. K. Lewis: asked the Postmaster-General what progress is being made with the introduction of quarterly billing of telephone accounts.

Mr. Bevins: I am glad to say that about three-quarters of telephone subscribers are now receiving quarterly bills, and I expect the change-over from six-monthly accounts to be completed before the end of 1964.

Subscriber Trunk Dialling, Scotland

Mr. Stodart: asked the Postmaster-General what proportion of telephone subscribers in Scotland is able to make use of subscriber trunk dialling.

Mr. Bevins: Twenty-seven per cent. of telephone subscribers in Scotland have the S.T.D. facility. I expect this proportion to be doubled in the next two years.

Mr. Stodart: Can my right hon. Friend give me the equivalent proportion for England and Wales?

Mr. Bevins: The present figure for the United Kingdom as a whole is 32 per cent. I think that the figure for England and Wales is probably about 30 per cent.

Telephones (Damage)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Postmaster-General if he is satisfied that the new telephone is sufficiently robust for general working conditions; and if he will indicate the rate of damage suffered by new instruments as compared with the old.

Mr. Bevins: Damage to telephones is quite small, but the rate of damage for the new type has been about double that for others because, being lighter, it is less stable. Rubber feet of a new kind have now been developed to give a better grip on polished surfaces, and a lighter and more flexible cord is being used. We are also trying out new types of plastic which may prove more robust than those previously available.

Mr. Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the new phone is defective, too, in the sense that the cord coming

across the receiver rest will cut off a subscriber when he does not want to be cut off?

Mr. Bevins: I am aware of that defect, and we are in process of putting it right now.

Acton

Mr. Holland: asked the Postmaster-General how many residents in the Borough of Acton have applied for and are still awaiting telephones; and what is the average waiting time for telephone installation in the area.

Mr. Bevins: About 50 Acton residents are awaiting telephones. This figure excludes orders under inquiry or being met. Where plant and equipment are available orders are usually met in two to three months.
If my hon. Friend will let me have particulars of any individual cases he has in mind, I should be very glad to investigate them.

Mr. Holland: Does my right hon. Friend recall that on 25th November, 1959, he advised me in the House that the average waiting time was two or three months but that there should be an improvement when a new cable was put down in January, 1960? Is he satisfied that the cable capacity is adequate to the needs? If so, what other difficulties are there and what does my right hen. Friend propose to do about them?

Mr. Bevins: There are about 30,000 telephone lines in Acton and the waiting list accounts for about ·6 per cent. of the total. In 1959, the year to which my hon. Friend refers, about 130 people had been waiting for more than three months. That figure is now down to 50 and we are hoping to make the waiting period shorter still by the provision of new cables in the district.

Applications

Mr. Ridley: asked the Postmaster-General if he will change his policy whereby he refuses telephones to would-be subscribers if it entails erecting further telephone wires.

Mr. Bevins: It is certainly not Post Office policy to refuse telephones because they entail erecting further wires. But my limited resources must be used to the


greatest advantage of would-be subscribers generally, and this means that the provision of service to individuals, when expensive new construction work is required, is sometimes delayed.

Mr. Ridley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his hon. Friend wrote to me about one of my constituents, saying that he could not have a telephone because it would entail erecting more wires, and that if his predecessors had taken that point of view nobody would have a telephone? Will he see that my constituent gets a telephone immediately?

Mr. Bevins: With respect to my hon. Friend, I think that he has ripped a phrase out of my hon. Friend's letter. My hon. Friend said that in this case the wiring would run to about 4,000 yards. May I say to my hon. Friend that the cost over and above the normal cost of providing a telephone would have been about £150. In spite of that, I have a good deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend and I will see what I can do.

Mid-Ulster

Mr. Forrest: asked the Postmaster-General how many applicants are now waiting for telephone service in Mid-Ulster; and how many telephones were installed in 1962.

Mr. Bevins: There are at present 35 outstanding applications, excluding those under inquiry or being met. Three hundred and sixty-five telephones were installed in 1962.

Reading Area

Sir A. Hurd: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that residents on the Highlands Estate, Bucklebury, including elderly people in ill-health, have been told that they will have to wait two years before they can have a telephone service; to what extent telephone development plans in the Reading area are still conditioned by restricted funds for capital investment; and what increased provision is being made in the current year so that arrears can be made good and the demand for telephones met promptly.

Mr. Bevins: The pace of telephone development in the Reading area, as elsewhere, is dependent on the resources available. This year's capital programme

for the area is 5 per cent. higher than last year's: but, in view of the volume of urgent work, I am sorry that some delays in providing service, as in the case of the Highlands Estate, are difficult to avoid.

Sir A. Hurd: Is my right hon. Friend as dissatisfied as I am that there should be a delay of two years in installing a telephone? Will he have another look to see what is the real hold-up in the Reading area? Is it lack of money? If so, surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be helpful? If it is lack of skilled manpower, could not that be recruited? He must have another look at this matter.

Mr. Bevies: The number of people who have to wait a period of that sort are very few, but Reading is a special case where there has been an increase of about 100 per cent. in the number of subscribers in the past 10 years. However, I am trying to secure some additional capital which should be able to help with the Reading problem.

Mr. Peter Emery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a member of his Department told me that the increase in demand in the Reading area in ratio to the population was greater than anywhere else in the United Kingdom? Will he, therefore, take special methods—[Interruption.]

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Mr. Speaker, at the risk of being out of order, I think that the whole House would wish me to welcome most warmly my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) on his return to the House of Commons after his accident and to say how glad we are to welcome our most distinguished Member.

Mr. H. Wilson: Further to that point and equally out of order. May I say on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends how much we welcome the sight of the right hon. Gentleman for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) coming into this Chamber again after his accident? We are glad to see him so fully restored that he can do this again, and the whole House will join with the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in giving him the happiest possible welcome.

Mr. Grimond: May I say that the Liberal Party would like to be associated with those sentiments?

Mr. Speaker: Now for the hon. Member for Reading, in order.

Mr. Peter Emery: Never have I been so delighted to hear the House out of order so much.
I was asking whether, in view of the special demand in Reading, my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General would take every extra effort possible to find a method of going further than was originally planned three years ago. The demand in this period has risen more than was originally estimated.

Mr. Bevins: I will willingly consider any additional measures which could be usefully taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Wireless Reception, Northern Ireland

Mr. H. Clark: asked the Postmaster-General whether the British Broadcasting Corporation has yet completed its survey of radio reception in Northern Ireland on 224 metres; and what have been its findings.

Mr. Bevins: Yes, Sir. The B.B.C. tells me that there has been some increase in fading at night in the outer parts of the service area. To remedy this, the B.B.C. proposes to make an adjustment to the mast at Lisnagarvey. As this will take some weeks to do and meanwhile service would have to be maintained from a temporary aerial, the B.B.C. proposes to do the job in the summer when listening after dark is at a minimum.

Mr. Clark: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does not he agree that it is rather a cart-before-the-horse principle to give us a service and then suddenly to decide that an adjustment of the masts is needed? Apart from that consideration, will my right hon. Friend make certain that, if these adjustments to the mast are not successful when the B.B.C. goes into the fourth stage satellite relay scheme, Northern Ireland will get its fair share so that we have a decent service throughout the country and not just round Belfast?

Mr. Bevins: It is true that the change in the wavelength has enabled Northern Ireland services to benefit the great majority of listeners in Northern Ireland.

When the adjustment to the mast takes place, reception in certain areas will be better than it is at present. On my hon. Friend's last point, the B.B.C. plans to open low power V.H.F. sound stations at Lame and Newry where reception is indifferent at present.

Programmes, North-East

Mr. Milne: asked the Postmaster-General what proportion of broadcasting time has been devoted to purely North-East programmes, following the separation of the North-East wavelength from Northern Ireland.

Mr. Bevins: This is a matter for the B.B.C., but it tells me that, since the North-East area has had its own wavelength, the Newcastle studios have been putting out about three hours and twenty minutes weekly of regular programmes of special interest to the area. This is about 3 per cent. of the time occupied by the Home Service.

Mr. Milne: Is the Postmaster-General aware that these figures are a little discouraging and that Manchester is not the beginning of the North but merely the end of the South? We in Northumberland were a kindom when London was a grass park. Will the right hon. Gentleman use what influence he has to ensure that these percentages are greatly increased?

Mr. Bevins: The North-East has done a little better since this change was made. As the hon. Gentleman knows, more time is devoted to local North-East news and to the programme known, I believe, as the "Voice of the People" However, I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said and I will gladly convey his views to the B.B.C.

Mr. H. Clark: Does my right hon. Friend realise that, if the north of England does not want to use the wavelength, the north of Ireland would be very glad to have it back again?

Mr. Bevins: That is not my understanding of what the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) had in mind.

Television Programmes (Standards)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Postmaster-General if he will seek to establish a television viewers council which will


consult viewers with the object of advising him on the suitability, desirability and attractiveness of television shows, and the maintenance of acceptable standards.

Mr. Bevins: No, Sir. Standards and content of programmes are the responsibility of the Chairman and Governors of the B.B.C. and of the Chairman and Members of the I.T.A.
The two broadcasting authorities ascertain public reaction to their services in various ways: first, there is the expression of opinion through Parliament, through the Press, and through the letters the public write to the broadcasters. Then there are the various advisory committees, and audience research, which is to be expanded.

Mr. Dempsey: Is not the Postmaster-General aware that there is grave concern at the growing number of sex and psychic performances which are appearing on television networks? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a tendency to glorify thuggery on these television shows, with its harmful influences to teen-age viewers? Does not he think that those who pay the piper, the viewers, are entitled to have some say in this matter and that one of the best mediums of achieving this would be to form a viewers' council?

Mr. Bevins: There is the Television Bill before Parliament which has something to do with the principal questions which the hon. Gentleman has just put to me, but the Question on the Order Paper suggests that there ought to be appointed a council of television viewers to advise the Postmaster-General about what is good and what is bad television. I could not for one moment accept this because if I did it would lead to interference with the independence of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A.

Mr. F. Harris: Will my right hon. Friend resist these requests for more and more control of television by way of viewers' councils? The public of this country are not old women like hon. Members opposite, and do not want such additional controls.

Mr. Bevins: Leaving hon. Members opposite out of the picture, I think that there is a good deal in what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Driberg: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this matter a little more seriously than the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris)—as I am sure he does—and explain what he means by his statement that audience research will be expanded? Does he mean that the T.A.M. sample will be increased further? Does the right hon. Gentleman regard that sample as adequate without a considerably greater qualitative survey?

Mr. Bevins: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, audience research is at present carried out by the B.B.C. on a quite extensive scale. It is not carried out in any large way by the Independent Television Authority, but, T.A.M. aside, there is specific provision in the Television Bill for audience research to be carried out by the Authority.

B.B.C. and I.T.A. (Programmes)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Postmaster-General if he will introduce legislation to ensure that the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority avoid the continued coincidence of similar programmes on the two channels.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Postmaster-General what further action he intends to take to implement the Government's proposals as outlined in paragraph 40 of the second White Paper on the Report of the Committee on Broadcasting, Command 1893, which deals with the presentation by the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority of similar programmes at similar times.

Mr. Bevins: I would refer the hon. Members to the Answer I gave on 7th May to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn). The broadcasting authorities know the Government's views, and I do not think there is a need for further Government action.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Postmaster-General aware that a viewer who wants to escape from, let us say, "Juke Box Jury"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—is confronted with an identical programme, "Thank Your Lucky Stars" at the identical time?

Sir C. Osborne: He can switch off.

Mr. Allaun: If, on the other hand, he is the kind of viewer who goes in for this kind of programme he is bound to miss one of them unless he can watch two sets at once. This is applicable to Westerns, thrillers, crime stories, religious and all other programmes. Would the Postmaster-General draw the attention of both authorities to the widespread resentment of viewers that, instead of providing an alternative programme, they are virtually denying it?

Mr. Bevins: As my hon. Friend has suggested, the viewing of television is not yet compulsory in this country. There is, indeed, at times a good deal to be said for genuine competition between B.B.C. and I.T.A. for audiences. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that when the second B.B.C. programme is transmitted there are bound to be in the nature of the case complementary programmes and a greater range of choice.

Mr. Mason: Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent he has got agreement on paragraph 40 of the White Paper in question, where the programmes are not in conflict with each other? Has he got the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. to agree?

Mr. Bevins: There have been discussions between the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. on these minority programmes, educational, religious and so forth, and I am quite satisfied that it is ticking along all right.

Mr. Goodhart: Will my right hon. Friend remember that the whole point of television competition was that viewers should have a choice and there can be no choice if there are similar programmes on both channels at the same time?

Mr. Bevins: That is one reason why the Government have authorised the second B.B.C. programme and have not ruled out the possibility of a second independent television programme.

B.B.C. (Plays)

Commander Kerans: asked the Postmaster-General if he will use his powers under Section 15(4) of the Licence and Agreement to ensure that the British Broadcasting Corporation refrain from

broadcasting plays detrimental to recruiting for the Armed Forces.

Mr. Bevins: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Captain Litchfield) on Tuesday last.

Commander Kerans: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this play, "A Little Bit of Gold said Jump", broadcast by the B.B.C., was a disgraceful misrepresentation of the Services and was anti-recruiting propanganda? It suggested that recruiting posters in the Royal Navy were useless and was an extreme insult to the communications branch of the Royal Navy. Will he do something about it?

Mr. Bevins: I told my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Capt. Litchfield) last Tuesday that I would ask for a script of this play. I have read it, and personally I found it rather boring. I agree that the play was not exactly an encouragement to Service recruiting. But my power to interfere is a reserve power, and I think that censorship in television is a very dangerous game. I am sure that the B.B.C. will use its good sense to take note of what has been said.

Television Reception, Scotland

Commander Donaldson: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the concern in the borders of Scotland regarding the poor television reception of the British Broadcasting Corporation; and, in view of the erection of the new station mast at Ashkirk Hill, near Selkirk, some months ago, when improved services may be expected in the greater border area.

Mr. Bevins: Yes, Sir. The B.B.C. hopes to open its Ashkirk television and VHF sound station next month. I am glad to say that the new station will bring B.B.C. television to 70,000 new viewers, and will improve reception for another 30,000 people.

Commander Donaldson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer. Without wishing to appear ungracious and while I am very grateful to him, may I ask him whether he is not aware that this matter has been constantly raised since 1951 when my right hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) was Postmaster-General, that it has been causing


increasing concern in my three counties and counties adjacent thereto, and that is is heart-warming that the Government have done something to improve matters, especially as they are worried about the possible closure of railway services?

KING PAUL AND QUEEN FREDERIKA OF GREECE (VISIT)

Ql. Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of current public feeling, he will consider advising the cancellation or postponement of the proposed visit to Britain of the Greek Royal Family.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Prime Minister what representations he has had from the Government of Greece about the postponement of the visit to this country of King Paul and Queen Frederika.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With permission, I will answer Question No. Q1 and Question No. Q3 together.
The answer is "No, Sir" and "None, Sir", respectively.
I hope very much that this visit will take place as planned. There is a long tradition of friendship between Greece and Britain dating now over 100 years, and cemented by our alliance through two long and terrible wars. It is true that this friendship came under strain at the time of the troubles in Cyprus but these have now happily been settled. The proposed visit will, therefore, mark the restoration to their traditional vigour of the friendly relations between our two countries.

Mr. Hamilton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that all royal visits, either to or from this country, have a political content, a fact which he emphasised when he recently cancelled a visit to Paris? If this visit is to take place, will the Government at least take the opportunity of impressing upon our guests the very great concern among large numbers of people in this country about the prolonged political incarceration of people who are in prison for political and not for any other kind of offence?

The Prime Minister: As I have said in my Answer, it is hoped that this visit will be of the greatest value to our ancient and traditional friendship with Greece and it is the outward and visible sign of that fact. With regard to the other part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, I hope that nobody will be misled by any misunderstanding of what the two Communist revolutions in Greece meant, both in 1944, when I had personal knowledge of the horrible things done, and in 1949. This campaign of the Communists has been well described as a shocking example of mendacity and hypocrisy.

Mr. Rankin: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that in the alliance between Greece and Britain to which he referred each country bound itself to preserve, maintain and extend the principles of democracy within its own territory? Would he not agree that it would be a wonderful occasion if with the arrival of the royal couple in this country the Greek Government were to grant political amnesty to the hundreds of political prisoners now lying in Greek gaols? Could not the right hon. Gentleman in some appropriate way, as he would certainly do, put that point to the proper authorities at the proper time?

The Prime Minister: This is a matter entirely for the Greek Government. We ought to be careful not to regard as political crimes the murder and mutilation which I saw with my own eyes on a terrible scale.

Sir T. Beamish: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the great majority of hon. Members will warmly welcome his reply to these Questions? Would he be kind enough to clear up a small doubt in the minds of some people and say whether when Queen Frederika was here on a private visit she was actually touched on the shoulders during the incident?

The Prime Minister: It is not unnatural that there should be some uncertainty as to precisely what happened in an incident of this kind. Her Majesty's Government have naturally accepted the statement of Queen Frederika. When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was explaining to


the House on 9th May, on such information as was available to him immediately after the incident, when the Home Office spokesman made his statement, it was then believed that Queen Frederika was not actually touched although inconvenienced and molested. Of course, we must and do accept her view of what happened and I deeply regret this incident.

Mr. Rankin: Would not the Prime Minister agree that in my supplementary question I referred to politcal prisoners and did not in any way include that small section to whom he referred? Will he at least think of trying to act along the lines which I have suggested, and when this royal couple come to the land of political liberty will he at least strike a blow for political freedom?

The Prime Minister: I appreciate any genuine motives of a humanitarian kind, but these are matters for the Greek Government. When their liberty was first recovered and the Germans left Greece, that was the first occasion on which the Communists tried to seize Greece. It was defended by the British Government and British troops and the most terrible things took place, which I saw myself. On the second occasion, in 1949, worse things took place and the Greek people feel that they have defended themselves against a form of Communist aggression of the most terrible kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESS CONFERENCES

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his proposed plan to engage in regular Press conferences.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given on my behalf to the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) on 9th May.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Prime Minister aware that that Answer was misleading in so far as this idea originated in the Tory Central Office? Is he further aware that this side of the House would be delighted to have Press conferences if the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition were to appear jointly at them? But if the idea was initiated

to polish up the tarnished image of the old grandad, we would have great objections to it indeed.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has made his point, such as it is. I hardly think it worth answering.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Prime Minister aware that, however much we may disagree with him, there are many people who are unwilling to believe that he wants to derogate from the position of the House of Commons, particularly on the day when the greatest commoner is here with us? Is he aware that there is some anxiety that the political system of this country is moving towards a presidential system and that this might be a further step in that direction? Before he considers any such suggestion as this, will the Prime Minister consider the suggestion for giving back more supremacy to this House, in particular by allowing an edited version of our proceedings on television, or by accepting a rather looser discipline from the party machines which dominate it?

The Prime Minister: I think that this has gone rather far from the Question. I saw suggested an idea that a Press conference might from time to time be given by the Prime Minister. All Ministers give Press conferences; so, I think, do leading members of the Opposition. Up to now the Prime Minister has rarely done so inside this country, for the reason that Tuesdays and Thursdays are in a sense the opportunity. On the other hand, I do not think it is right that the Prime Minister should necessarily be precluded from giving a Press conference when other Ministers and many other people give them. But that is different from anything like the regular Presidential Press conference which is applicable to a President who has no recourse to and is not a member of Congress.

Mr. H. Wilson: Since this kite was flown by the Tory Central Office—presumably with the right hon. Gentleman's approval; one does not know this—is he aware that the answer to the question raised by this proposal was hinted at in the answer he has just given when he referred to his custom of replying to Questions in the House on Tuesdays and Thursdays? Would not all possible complaint and all possible desire on this


matter be met if the right hon. Gentleman would break with his usual practice and start giving a few straight Answers to Questions on Tuesdays and Thursdays?

The Prime Minister: If anybody wished to learn how to give a straight answer it would not be from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Wilson: Since the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that this Opposition has stated much more frankly its policy on public questions than his party ever did, and since he refers to answering questions, does the Prime Minister recall the seven very clear questions which I put to him in Scotland during his visit, every one of which he refused to answer?

The Prime Minister: There were seven loaded questions to which the right hon. Gentleman got a very good and fast reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD SAFETY

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister of Road Safety.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I am satisfied that responsibility for road safety is properly a matter for the Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Spriggs: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to examine the reply given to me on 8th May, as reported in column 426 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport said that 49,520 people were killed on the roads in Great Britain between 1955 and 1962, and 590,000 were seriously injured in the same period? If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to concede what I request in my Question, will he please reverse his policy against nationalised transport and so help to reduce the number of people seriously injured and killed on our roads?

The Prime Minister: As we all know, the matter of road accidents is very serious, but this is simply a question whether it should be taken out of the responsibility of the two Ministers who deal with transport in Scotland and England and Wales and become the

responsibility of a separate Minister without, apparently, any Ministerial authority over roads, or any of the statutory authorities vested in the present Ministers. I am saying that, much as I deplore this and hope that we shall make progress in preventing accidents, I do not think, with the best will in the world, that the machinery suggested by the hon. Gentleman would be helpful.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: In view of the gravity of this question, which has become a major social problem, will the right hon. Gentleman appoint a high-level inquiry into the real cost of road accidents and into the remedies which should be taken to reduce them?

The Prime Minister: I think that in the course of various inquiries into the whole problem of roads and traffic which is now being undertaken by the Minister, and in which I think great progress has been made, this point will no doubt emerge and will be part of the considerations.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (NUCLEAR FORCE)

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Prime Minister what communication he has had recently with the President of the United States in relation to the proposed allied agreement to create a multilateral North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear force armed with Polaris missiles on surface ships; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: I am in frequent touch with the President of the United States, but it is not customary to reveal what passes in these confidential exchanges.

Mr. Wainwright: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there are sufficient missiles without having any more brought into operation in this country? Would he also explain to the House whether or not there would be any utility value in these ships in the event of some agreement coming into operation about the reduction of Polaris missiles?

The Prime Minister: All these matters are under consideration by


N.A.T.O. and all that we have done is to make our contribution, as was explained to the House, as part of the Nassau Agreement. We are considering with our allies any other plans which are now being discussed.

Mr. Warbey: On a point of Order. Has not the Prime Minister in his supplementary answer given—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I desire to hear the point of order being submitted.

Mr. Warbey: Has not the Prime Minister in his supplementary answer given a partial answer to Questions No. 8 and No. 9, and should not he therefore now answer those Questions together with this one?

Mr. Speaker: There is no point of substance whatsoever in that so far as I can see.

Sir C. Osborne: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is satisfied that British manufacturers generally are getting a fair share of the orders that are going for N.A.T.O. equipment, not only on Polaris, but on other types of equipment which N.A.T.O. is using?

The Prime Minister: Every country thinks that it ought to have more. I think that our manufacturers have done a wonderful job, and I am glad to see that our exports in this respect are continually growing.

Mr. Healey: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us feel that the proposal for a multilateral force may commit the West German Government to a nuclear rôle at a time when political power in Germany is passing into the hands of those who do not wish Germany to have a nuclear rôle, and recognise the political danger? Will the right hon. Gentleman insist, at the next Ottawa meeting of N.A.T.O., that N.A.T.O. should return to the general lines of solving the problem of the control of nuclear weapons, as agreed at the Athens meeting of the N.A.T.O. Council last year?

The Prime Minister: I will bear the hon. Member's thoughts in mind. These are very difficult questions that we have

to discuss in full. If I were to go into detail now I should be causing some grievance to hon. Members who have the next Questions on the Order Paper.

Mr. A. Henderson: On a point of order. May I draw your attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that we have had five Questions answered in 15 minutes. Would it not be courteous to other hon. Members if it were possible to compress our supplementary questions a little more?

Mr. Speaker: As far as I am concerned, the shorter the supplementary question the better—[Interruption.]

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: What is happening now is that I am addressing the House, and not raising a point of order with myself. Sometimes, by reason of the interventions of the Front Benches on both sides of the House, and by leaders of the parties, Prime Minister's Questions are spun out into an exchange of compliments which the House does not always dislike.

Mr. A. Henderson: May I draw the attention of the Prime Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that a very important letter has been received from Mr. Khrushchev? Does not he think that it would be—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can see no conceivable basis even for the right hon. Gentleman to urge that the Prime Minister be allowed to deal with that point at the moment.

Mr. Warbey: I desire to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. May I do so, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot allow it.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Unless I heard wrongly there were references to some person called "Rankin". If I am the person designated, is not that out of order? Ought not the persons concerned to refer to me as "the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan?"

Mr. Speaker: I would not venture to guess what was the subject of interest at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. PAGET: To ask the Prime Minister, in view of his stated policy that Enahoro would not be returned to Nigeria if there was doubt or question of the death penalty being enforceable there and that he would not be returned without a definite undertaking from Nigeria that no charge carrying the death penalty would be laid, what action he is taking in view of the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice that since this is not a case under the Extradition Act where the court only grants extradition for the charges actually preferred, Nigeria is fully entitled to prefer any additional charges, and of the refusal by the Nigerian Government to give any undertakings.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Prime Minister has asked your leave to answer Question No. Q10, in view of its urgency and in view of the fact that it concerns his personal honour.

Mr. Speaker: I have had no such request.

Oral Answers to Questions — BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Food Imports (Control)

Sir H. Harrison: I beg to give notice that on Wednesday, 29th May, I shall call attention to the need for greater control of imports of foreign food, and move a Resolution.

Rating

Mr. W. Clark: I beg to give notice that on Wednesday, 29th May, I shall call attention to the problem of rating, and move a Resolution.

Private Nursing Homes

Mr. Sorensen: I beg to give notice that on Wednesday, 29th May, I shall call attention to the need for greater public control of nursing homes and other private residential provision for the aged and infirm, and move a Resolution.

HIRE PURCHASE (LIMITATION OF PAYMENTS)

3.36 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to limit the total amount which may be paid by way of deposit and instalments under a hire-purchase agreement or a credit-sale agreement to 150 per cent. of the sum stated as the cash price of the goods.
Before explaining the terms of the Bill I wish to say, on behalf of all those Members newly elected at bye-elections—on both sides of the House, I imagine—what a pleasure it is to be able to say that we have seen the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) in his place.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Dalyell: The Bill seeks to limit the total amount which may be paid by way of deposit and instalments under a hire-purchase agreement, or a credit sale agreement, to 150 per cent. of the sum stated as the cash price.
First, I wish to pay tribute to the vast majority of hire-purchase firms, who render a service and a function to the community, and especially to young couples who are setting up home for the first time. But there exists in our society a small minority of unscrupulous, ruthless hire-purchase robber barons whose practices of unrelenting usury would have been insufferable even to the caliphs of ancient Baghdad. To bring into focus the sort of situation which the Bill seeks to remedy I offer one example.
A constituent from Bathgate, in March, 1956, started to pay for a television set whose cash price was £75 15s. 0d. By January, 1963, my constituent had paid £152 0s. 9d., and was still paying £1 a week to pay off an extra £10 13s. 0d. which was mounting at compound interest. Does not this constitute sheer, damnable extortion?
My proposed Bill has two virtues. The first is its simplicity. The calculation is straightforward. The total sum that can be paid will be one and a half times the cash price, which has to be stated in black and white under existing law. Simplicity is important, because if my


constituent, like many others, was blame-worthy, he was blameworthy basically because he was incompetent with financial documents.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House cannot be very happy about some of the abracadabra presentation of accounts that appear too often from a few-hire purchase firms. I am supposedly fit to be a Member of the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons, and to have some familiarity with the way in which accounts should be presented, but I confess that, when confronted by the accounts of some of these hire-purchase firms—I admit that the ones with which I am concerned are few in number—I have been utterly bewildered by what I believe to be purposely chaotic accounting. If Members of Parliament are confused, is it not easy to forgive others less familiar with documents, who are utterly bamboozled?
The second virtue of my proposed Bill lies in the time scale. If 150 per cent. of the cash price were the limit, there would be a positive disincentive for hire-purchase firms to have long-drawn-out accounts extending over years because their capital would be locked up in an unproductive way. To get it back the firms might be obliged to go to law for a comparatively small amount. In effect, hire-purchase firms would have to look much more carefully at the likely ability of a potential client to pay within a reasonable

time and in itself that would be a good thing.
We are concerned to prevent excess of extortion and to add one extra tooth to that corpus of legislation initiated in the late 1930s by Ellen Wilkinson and built on by many hon. Members, some of whom are present today. If the Bill be given a Second Reading its provisions may perhaps be made to apply only to sums of under £300 because we are not concerned with industrial hire purchase. I commend the Bill to the House as a small Measure which may mitigate a large volume of sheer misery.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tam Dalyell, Mr. James Boyden, Mr. Alan Fitch, Mr. W. W. Hamilton, Mr. William Hannan, Mr. Joseph Harper, Mr. Hayman, Mr. George Lawson, Mr. John Mackie, Mr. Richard Marsh, Mr. Norman Pentland, and Mr. Ernest Thornton.

HIRE PURCHASE (LIMITATION OF PAYMENTS)

Bill to limit the total amount which may be paid by way of deposit and instalments under a hire-purchase agreement or a credit-sale agreement to 150 per cent. of the sum stated as the cash price of the goods, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 24th May and to be printed [Bill 109.]

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

3.45 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move,
That the Bill be considered in the following order: Clauses 1 to 3, Schedule 1, Clauses 4 to 6, Schedule 2, Clauses 7 to 12, Schedule 3, Clauses 13 to 15, Schedule 4, Clauses 16 to 25, Schedule 5, Clause 26, Schedule 6, Clauses 27 and 28, Schedule 7, Clauses 29 to 42, Schedule 8, Clauses 43 to 53, Schedule 9, Clauses 54 to 69, new Clauses, Schedules 10 to 12, new Schedules.
It has become customary in recent years to move a Motion such as this, and I am sure that this grouping of Schedules with Clauses is for the convenience of the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO SURCHARGES AND REBATES IN RESPECT OF REVENUE DUTIES.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: Before we pass this Clause, I think that it would be convenient to spend a few moments discussing the past use and the proposed future use of the regulators. As was explained by the Financial Secretary during the Second Reading, by this Clause it is proposed to extend the Customs and Excise regulator from August, 1963, to August, 1964. That is a positive act of extension of the power in the hands of the Chancellor to make orders increasing or reducing certain taxes subject to approval by the House of Commons.
The Clause also proposes a procedural change. In the case of reductions in taxations the period of time during which the Chancellor of the Exchequer must receive the approval of the House is defined as 21 sitting days instead of 21 calendar days. As the Financial Secretary explained, that brings a desirable flexibility to the procedural obligations of the Chancellor when he proposes to use the

regulator to reduce taxation as distinct from increasing it.
If the right hon. Gentleman proposes to use the regulator to increase taxation within the prescribed limit he has to receive the approval of the House within 21 calendar days, which, in certain circumstances, may involve the recall of Parliament for that purpose. That we all understand, and hon. Members on this side of the Committee are in agreement with the proposed procedural change.
Of the proposal to extend the regulator for a further year, during the Second Reading debate the Financial Secretary said:
I doubt whether anyone in the House will dissent from the renewal of this power …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1963; Vol. 677, c. 38.]
While not dissenting from the renewal of this power, I think it worth while to consider whether the power retains the potency which it was designed to have when the former Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced it, along with another regulator, in the Finance Act of 1961.
As the Committee will remember, there were originally two regulators and a good deal of discussion took place on both of them when the Bill which became the 1961 Finance Act was being considered. The regulator giving power to levy the payroll tax, though written into the Finance Act of 1961, was never used and was finally discarded in the Finance Act of 1962. When the former Chancellor of the Exchequer produced this it was contemplated that the new powers would be used as a sort of double-barrelled regulator. In the discussion on the proposed payroll tax many flaws and difficulties of administration were revealed.
What the former Chancellor of the Exchequer had overlooked when he proposed the payroll regulator was the length of time it would take to print National Insurance stamps of higher denominations, and, since that was to be the means of imposing the additional tax, the swift impact of the payroll regulator would be destroyed by the weeks—perhaps extending into months—that would go by before National Insurance stamps of the required higher value could be obtained.
Ill-conceived or not, administrative difficulties great or small, last year the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) proposed to drop the payroll regulator entirely, so that now we are left with the survivor of the Act of 1961 which is virtually confined in present circumstances to Customs and Excise duties. The Chancellor has used those powers since the Finance Act of last year to bring about much more drastic reductions in Purchase Tax than were open to him by the use of the Customs and Excise regulator.
So far as I can discover, there is not a single rate of Purchase Tax which remains the same today as it did last year, with the sole exception of the 15 per cent. tax on confectionery and ice-cream. The Chancellor reduced other rates very substantially indeed and, presumably, he has in his hands the same power to use it again to reduce Purchase Tax between now and the Budget of next year, if he wishes to do so.
But he has not got power, as I understand—apart from the regulator—to increase or reduce Customs and Excise duties and it is those, therefore, which are the principal content of the regulator now in use and which the Clause proposes to extend until August, 1964. Is this regulator worth retaining in its present form? Is it likely to do what the Chancellor wishes to do in certain economic conditions? While not dissenting from giving the right hon. Gentleman this reserve power, I think that the Committee will probably judge the retention of the regulator as of a great deal less importance now than was envisaged for it two years ago.
Furthermore, the use so far of this regulator is open to some criticism. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Wirral waited for the ink on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill of 1961 to dry a little before he used one of the regulators given to him in that legislation. That was on 27th July, 1961. Then, last year, the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral asked the House to consolidate into permanent legislation many of the increases which had been brought about by the use of that regulator. The former Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in effect, "And from here we can start all over again."
I criticise the use of the regulator in those conditions. I criticise the putting up of taxes under the regulator, which was intended to be a temporary measure, then consolidating them into permanent taxation and asking for the same powers all over again, both to increase and reduce. The former Chancellor thought that it was a fitter and tidier job to clean the slate and embody the increased taxation into the permanent structure as far as seemed expedient—and then to ask for similar powers for use in the future, whenever conditions might demand.
In this Budget the Chancellor has not proposed to reduce any of the Customs and Excise duties to the level they were before the regulator of 1961 put them up. I have already explained that the increases of 1961 were embodied into permanent taxation in 1962. There they stay. If one looks at the assortment of Customs and Excise duties increased as from 26th July, 1961, one sees how many of them stay at that level. The regulator which is asked for in Clause I could reduce them to the level that they were in July, 1961. It could increase them beyond the 1961 level. I hope that if the Chancellor comes to use this regulator he will bear in mind the desirability of reducing the increases in taxation which were justified at the time as a temporary measure to meet particular economic circumstances and not maintain the temporary level of taxation as a permanent feature of our tax system.
What I have said seems a reasonable comment to make on the Clause, having regard to the power it seeks. It would be a pity if the Committee took this sort of regulator for granted and voted it into the Bill year after year without re-examining the conditions under which it got there, the use that has been made of it and what potentialities it has for its purpose in the future.
I feel that it is of little value to the Chancellor in present circumstances. There is new thinking now on the whole question of taxation in particular economic conditions. One might say that if a regulator of this kind is to have the fullest use which the Chancellor may wish to make of it, then the range of adjustment upwards or downwards of these particular taxes is too narrow and that it could, with very good reason, be made wider; that is, if it is going to be a real economic weapon. After all,


this is not a revenue-yielding operation. It is part of the armoury of taxation being used for economic purposes.
In these circumstances, we want to know whether it is or is likely to be used for that purpose and whether it will be effective. I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to make some observations about the desires and designs of his right hon. Friend in regard to the extension of this regulator. Is it just something he would like to have, something he intends to use, or is it something which is, as a matter of routine, now more conveniently put into the Bill than left out?

Mr. Raymond Gower: I do not think that any hon. Member would dissent from the suggestion of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) that this power should be queried and examined, along with its exercise, each year we discuss the Finance Bill in Committee. On the other hand, I suspect that he under-estimated the possible value of this instrument.
The hon. Member for Sowerby said that there was new thinking today about taxation. The implication of his remarks was that the result of that new thinking might make unnecessary the sort of flexible instrument represented by the regulator. I respectfully suggest to him that in an economy so finely balanced and subject to so many pressures at home and abroad as is ours, we would be wise to retain an instrument of this kind, even if we have that new thinking on long-term taxation.
My right hon. Friend was absolutely right in not merely retaining the regulator, but in retaining it in its present form. Whatever new methods we may frame or conceive, it is a very valuable weapon which should be retained in our armoury.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. William Warbey: My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has thrown some doubts on the merits of the Clause. I want to throw a few more.
It will be recalled that when the proposal for a regulator was first put to the House, two years ago, some of us opposed its conception outright, not because we were against economic regulators in principle, but because we

thought that one should discriminate between those which were good and those which were bad. We happened to think that this was a bad one and we now think that it has become worse with the passage of time.
The arguments which we adduced against it two years ago are still valid. Some additional reasons why it is a bad form of regulator have been accumulated over the last two years. We objected to it when it was first introduced because it involved a form of discrimination between people who made their contributions to taxation mainly through Income Tax and those who made them through indirect taxes.
Indirect taxation is very largely a form of poll tax. We therefore objected to the principle that the Chancellor should be able, without engaging in the exercise involved in the presentation of a Budget and a complete review of the country's economic position, to increase indirect taxes without at the same time increasing direct taxes. We objected, also, because its form is a global one and, therefore, it is not possible to discriminate between various components of the whole. This point has become much more serious in the situation with which we are now confronted.
We also objected because this was a device which opened the door wide for political manipulation. I do not think that there would be any dispute between the two sides of the Committee that the whole system of taxation in this country makes it quite possible for Chancellors of the Exchequer to use variations of taxation for political advantage. This has been done quite regularly by Tory Chancellors of the Exchequer over the last twelve years. I think that they would now hardly deny that they have had an eye to the effect on the electorate when they have framed their Budgets. Through this addition of the regulator, we are giving to such a Chancellor additional power of political manipulation.
I do not wish to imply that the present Chancellor is any worse in this respect than his predecessors. On the whole, he is probably better. He has probably a more objective view of the economic position of the country than almost any of the Tory Chancellors under whom we have suffered in the past eleven years, but even he cannot remain aloof from


the pressure of his own party. Therefore, he cannot remain proof against the kind of temptations which are put in his way. I am astonished that he should widen the door to temptation so much more on this occasion when everyone knows that we are approaching a year in which we shall have a General Election.
My hon. Friend, referring to subsection (2), said that on this side of the Committee there would be general agreement with this proposed change. I am one who is not in general agreement with it, because I think that the subsection makes far more possible the kind of political manipulation with which we might be faced in coming months than would have been the situation if the procedure had not been altered. It will be recalled that the procedural question was one in which we on this side took a great interest. We argued at the time when the whole matter was discussed that it was quite wrong for any Chancellor to be given these wide powers, involving variation of taxation by as much as £200 million, without getting the approval of Parliament and without in so doing submitting the whole economic argument for making these substantial changes.
As a result of views expressed from this side of the Committee, a compromise was arrived at and procedure adopted by which, although the then Chancellor was unwilling to concede our demand that parliamentary approval should be sought before an order was made, nevertheless it would lapse unless it was confirmed within 21 days. This would still be the position but for the change which the Chancellor is now proposing to make. The effect of the Chancellor's proposed change is extremely important, particularly this year, because, if the change is approved, it will be quite possible for him to make a 10 per cent. reduction in indirect taxes two or three days after the House has risen in August and for those orders to be effective, come into operation and be applied, although Parliament will not be able to do anything about it for three months.
Even more important, it might not be able to do anything about it until after a General Election. There have been suggestions in some quarters that the Prime Minister may be contemplating

having a General Election in October. I do not know any more than he does, but that is one of the possibilities which we certainly have to consider. There is a very real possibility that the Chancellor might make an order under this Clause on 4th August, or 5th August, the Prime Minister arrange for a dissolution of Parliament some time in September and go into a General Election without Parliament having had an opportunity even of saying whether or not it approves of the changes in taxation which the Chancellor had made.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: The hon. Member says that Parliament would have no opportunity, but the electors would. That is much more important.

Mr. Warbey: Certainly the electors would. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro), by his intervention, gives a great deal of support to the suspicions which are at present in the minds of hon. Members on this side of the Committee. I was trying to get away from those unpleasant suspicions and to appeal to the Chancellor on another ground.
It is wrong in principle that Parliament—which means the sitting Parliament—should not have an opportunity of pronouncing upon the changes which he proposes to make in taxation. I therefore ask him to look into the possibility, between now and Report stage, of further amending this subsection so as to ensure that any order he makes would lapse if Parliament were dissolved before it had an opportunity of confirming the order or otherwise. That is a very fair proposal. If the Chancellor wishes to avoid any suggestion of political manipulation, he should take it seriously.
I want, finally, to refer to some additional economic arguments against the prolongation of this power in present conditions. First, the reduction in the general Purchase Tax levels has resulted in a situation in which the changes that can be made in Purchase Tax through this regulator are so marginal as to be more of a nuisance to trade than a benefit to the consumer. The actual reductions that can be made in Purchase Tax under the Clause are, in retail prices, two-thirds of 1 per cent., 1 per cent. or per 1⅔cent.
I see the hon. Member for Kidderminster shaking his head. I do not know whether he has not followed my arithmetic, but I will, if he desires, supply him with detailed calculations. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be able to confirm whether I am right.
A change so marginal could have no effect on prices. No retailer would reduce his prices by two-thirds of 1 per cent., nor would he reduce them by 1 per cent. Very few would reduce them by 1⅔ per cent. All that would happen, therefore, is that there would be a loss of revenue without any corresponding benefit to the consumer. In other words, the benefit would go into the pockets of manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers.
Secondly, as a result of the non-discriminatory character of the regulator, to make any reduction in Purchase Tax under the Clause the Chancellor must also make a substantial reduction in Excise duties, which are primarily the duties on tobacco, alcohol and oil. Any variation in the tax on oil should be made as part of general economic policy. The Chancellor has already stated his economic policy in regard to the duties upon oil, namely, that they should be retained at their present level to provide some form of protection for the coal industry.
Tobacco and alcohol raise questions of social policy. I wonder whether the Chancellor wishes to place himself in the position in which, to secure a marginal and, indeed, minimal and probably non-effective reduction in Purchase Tax and in the prices of necessities and minor luxuries, he has to give a substantial impetus to smoking and to the consumption of alcohol. That is the position in which he has now placed himself.
In view of the general consideration of what a reasonable social and economic policy in relation to the goods affected by the regulator should be, the matter should be taken back and looked at again. If we are to have a regulator at all, it should be discriminatory and effective and one over which the House of Commons has some control.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I take issue with almost every remark which has been addressed to the

Committee this afternoon by hon. Members opposite. When the regulators were first introduced, in 1961, the one which we are considering was applied to Northern Ireland and a special concession was made that any revenue derived from its use should be returned to and retained in Northern Ireland. As a result of Amendments which I introduced, the other regulator, the payroll tax was not applied to Northern Ireland. At that time, however, arguments were clearly expressed in favour of these regulators and there was overwhelming argument that the Budget was not the best way of regulating our economy.
We have a finely-balanced economy and in happens from time to time, as terms of trade and business confidence change, that the Government need to Interfere and to try to influence the economy. Until 1961, the main measures which the Government could use were monetary namely Bank Rate and special deposits and also perhaps by influencing hire-purchase arrangements.
The regulators were introduced so that fiscal weapons could be added to the Chancellor's armoury and they have been used most effectively. They are a welcome addition to the Chancellor's powers. The safeguards which are incorporated in subsection (2) of the Clause repeating the provisions of the former Act are perfectly adequate for the House of Commons.
To follow an earlier argument from the benches opposite, I also feel that these methods shift the burden towards indirect taxation. In that connection, we have to consider our entire system of taxation. Particularly if one considers the systems of taxation as applied among our Continental competitors, among whom a sales tax or the French T.V.A. tax is employed, one finds that Europe there is greater concentration on indirect taxation. This concentration on indirect taxation on the Continent helps our competitors there in their export market
battles. Therefore, inasmuch as the argument turns on a slight shift from direct to indirect taxation, I suggest that this is an advantage rather than a disadvantage and helps us to compete more efficiently and more effectively with our competitors abroad.
In his Budget speech, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the whole system of T.V.A. was


to be referred to a special inquiry to be conducted by Mr. Gordon Richards. I welcome that. I hope that some suggestions will result which will be incorporated in next year's Finance Bill and which will help us in our competition.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: I do not think that it lies in the mouths of the Opposition to object to the Government reducing taxation. Indeed, I always thought, going back to the days of Mr. Gladstone, that it was the duty of the House of Commons to resist taxation. Therefore, per contra, I should have thought that it is our duty to encourage the Government to reduce taxation. Therefore, I do not disagree with the principle.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) was quite right in his suspicions, but it is nothing new for a Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer, even in his budget, to offer all sorts of bribery to the electors in the form of a reduction of taxation. I do not see what the difference is between giving the Chancellor the opportunity of the regulator, which he might use immediately before a General Election, and giving it to him in his Budget, where he does exactly the same thing. My hon. Friend must not be too sure that the General Election is coming this year. I believe that his example, when he quoted August, would be very inappropriate.
I rise merely to put this point before the Committee. Is this the right way to do our financial business? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is once granted the power to reduce taxation—I do not say that we should give him, or even that he would ask for, power to increase taxation in this way—is not the Committee parting to a certain extent with its power to control the Executive and the Treasury over the whole pattern of taxation?
Therefore, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield was quite right. There may be very important reductions—for example, in Purchase Tax—which the Opposition might want to push to the extreme and to advocate before a General Election, whereas the Chancellor might use a much more popular means of inducing the electorate to vote for his party and reduce another form of taxation. In that respect the Committee

is thereby losing that control over finance that we ought to have and which we have insisted on year in and year out.
We have argued that we should not send certain Clauses of the Finance Bill upstairs to Standing Committee because finance is so important that the House of Commons must be in supreme control. Here, I think, we are losing some control.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): This is an important Clause and I agree with the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) that it would not be right to pass it without some discussion and, indeed, some explanation.
The explanation of the Clause as given by the hon. Member for Sowerby was broadly correct. The purpose of the Clause is really twofold: first, to extend for a further year the power to apply the surcharges and rebates to Customs and Excise duties; and, secondly, as the hon. Member pointed out, to provide that regulator changes involving reductions in taxation should be subject to an affirmative Resolution of the House of Commons within 21 sitting days instead of 21 calendar days. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sowerby for saying on behalf of at any rate a great body of the Opposition that he does not dissent from our proposals. Indeed, I think that it is true to say that renewal of this power has been generally welcomed.
I was sorry that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) took a rather different view. As I understood it, one of his principal objections was that the Clause is concerned with indirect taxation rather than direct taxation. I am sure that he will recall from our earlier discussions, both in 1961 when the regulator was first discussed by the House of Commons and also last year, that one of the great advantages of this way of regulating the economy is that the effect is immediate, because one is acing on indirect taxation rather than on, shall we say, Income Tax where one makes changes which take some time to become operative.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) pointed out that one great advantage of an economic regulator of this kind is that it provides the Chancellor of the Exchequer with an


alternative, or, at any rate, an additional, means of influencing demand. I should have thought that this is one of the principal reasons why it is generally accepted today.
I certainly do not want to be in any way provocative on this Clause, but I should perhaps say that I did not quite follow the hon. Member for Ashfield's incursion into party politics. I can only say that in matters of party manœuvring I think that the hon. Gentleman has a somewhat different approach from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
This regulator power was first introduced in 1961, The hon. Member for Ashfield referred to the discussions we then had. The Committee will recall that when we discussed the matter then it was assumed that there would be a common period within which the matter had to be brought before the House of Commons for both surcharges and rebates. Indeed, so far as I can recall, no other suggestion was made. What the Committee was primarily concerned with in those discussions at that time was the power to increase taxation by over £200 million a year, as it were, overnight. Clearly, if this were done at the beginning of, say, the Summer Recess, it would be right that Parliament should be recalled. Therefore, it was provided in 1961, and the same provision was contained in last year's Finance Act, that the Order should lapse if it was not affirmed by the House of Commons within 21 calendar days. I am sure that the Committee will think that that was the right sort of procedure and, certainly, in those circumstances no change is proposed.
The position is somewhat different with reductions. Here there is no question of additional burdens on the taxpayer. Indeed, any such proposal as this would generally be welcomed. What is proposed in that event—that is, in the case of reductions, or rebates—is that the order should lapse, unless it is approved by affirmative Resolution within 21 sitting days. I point out to the hon. Member for Ashfield and to any other member of the Committee who has any doubt about the matter, that this is the form which was used in the Import Duties Acts of 1932 and 1958 and also, incidentally, in the Finance Act, 1948, for orders increasing Purchase Tax.
At any rate, I am grateful, as I am sure my right hon. Friend is, for the support of the hon. Member for Sowerby and I hope that the Committee will take the view that the power which my right hon. Friend asks for is a sensible one for him to have in reserve.

Mr. Anthony Crosland: I wish that the Financial Secretary had given a rather longer and more elaborate statement of how the Government see this Clause, because it is, in fact, a very much more important Clause than most of the others in the Bill. It is a Clause to continue for another year an extremely powerful weapon in the Government's armoury. The Financial Secretary might perhaps have given a rather clearer idea of how the Government see the Clause, in what circumstances they will use it, and so on.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) made clear, we on this side of the Committee, with one or two notable exceptions, never opposed this method in principle when it was first introduced. We do not do so now. The case in logic for some regulator of this character is unanswerable. The Financial Secretary could have made it more strongly than he did. I think that everybody on both sides of the Committee, looking back on the history of the last ten years, would now agree that one of the main reasons why we do not get a reasonable speed of growth is that the whole thing is so jerky. If we could get a greater stability of growth, we should have a very much more rapid rate of growth on the average. This means that we must have some firmer regulator than any Government has had at their disposal during the bulk of the 1950s.
When one comes to try to decide what kind of regulator a Chancellor of the Exchequer could possibly use, one is in the end forced down to a regulator of this general sort of character. After all, there is not very much that a Chancellor can do to regulate exports. Export fluctuations—alas—are almost entirely outside the control of a British Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is true that he can do a great deal to regulate the growth of public expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman has accepted, as we on this side of the Committee have, a recommendation of the Plowden Committee that we should try to stabilise this more successfully than has been done in the past.
There is little that any Chancellor can do in any precise fashion to regulate investment demand. He can have a crude influence on it by changes in investment allowances, but this is, to put it mildly, a rather imprecise weapon and there is no method open to any Chancellor of any party by which he can closely and precisely regulate the growth of investment demand. Therefore, in the end a Chancellor of the Exchequer of any party would be reduced to some general regulator on consumption.
The reason why we favour this in principle is that we think that to use this type of regulator would be very much preferable to the way in which Governments have been operating in the last ten years—that is, by suddenly introducing a sort of crisis package deal—high rates of interest, cuts in public investment, etc. If one is to try to regulate the growth of demand, this must in principle be the right way to do it.
Having said that, it is not necessarily clear that this particular regulator on Purchase Tax and Customs and Excise duties is the only way, or even the right way. There are other ways which we ought to consider. It is highly desirable that we should have a debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", on this sort of Clause every year, otherwise we cannot discuss alternatives to this type of regulator.
4.30 p.m.
We could, instead of this—as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Wirrall (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) suggested, or half suggested, two years ago—have used the payroll tax as a regulator. I wish that he had produced that suggestion in a very much less half-baked form, because it is a serious one. Its advantages were not properly discussed because, as I say, he produced this proposal in a rather half-baked form. True, there are great practical difficulties about it, but it could be looked at as an alternative to this method.
Another alternative, to which probably most hon. Members would not want to go back to, is the method of rather savage changes in hire-purchase regulations falling on a very small range of industries. After a time, everyone came to the conclusion that that was too painful a

method for those industries, and was often very inefficient.
Another possibility, which the Financial Secretary briefly mentioned, is that one should have a regulator tied, not Ito indirect taxation but to personal Income Tax. It is clear that, administratively, that would be more difficult. It is also clear that it would not operate nearly as quickly on people's actual spending as would a change in indirect taxation. But, without knowing what has gone on in the recesses of the Inland Revenue, I feel that such a regulator has not been considered in enough detail to see whether or not the administrative snags are decisive. We should look at it again in more detail.
However, this is the regulator we have. It is the best we have at the moment. But it is certainly not without extreme disadvantages. That is why we should search for a better one all the time. One disadvantage that has been mentioned is that it is extremely crude both as between different goods and between different parts of the country. My hon. Friend mentioned the possibility, and it is a serious one, of the Chancellor being in a situation where, because there is a temporary recession, he wants to use the regulator to reduce indirect taxation as a whole.
But when doing so by this regulator he would have to make a really quite sharp reduction in alcohol tax, petrol tax, tobacco tax, and next year, perhaps, a gambling tax. One could easily imagine that for reasons of recession one wanted a broad reduction in indirect taxation while not wishing to bring down the price of a bottle of whisky, or of cigarettes, or, maybe, bingo next year.
Another serious disadvantage when compared with a payroll tax is that it is impossible to make this regulator discriminatory between different parts of the country. One could make the payroll tax discriminatory as between areas of high unemployment and relatively full employment, but it would be impossible, by any kind of human ingenuity to make this regulator operate differently in Northern Ireland and, say Southern England. That is another serious practical disadvantage of this regulator.
Another serious disadvantage is, perhaps, psychological. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby mentioned, this regulator has been rather seriously misused by the Government. The justification for a regulator falling on indirect taxation is that it is only a regulator, by which one means that sometimes it goes up and sometimes it goes down, but does not, on balance, either go up or down. If it is consolidated, as in last year's Budget it was, it means that it is not being used as a regulator, but as a method of increasing indirect taxation. It is a serious point against the previous Chancellor that he used it to make a permanent increase in the proportion of our total tax system that fails on indirect taxation—

Mr. Gower: Surely, that is not a criticism of the regulator, but a criticism of the decision of the House, when discussing the subsequent Budget.

Mr. Crosland: When I said that the regulator had been misused, it was not a criticism of the regulator as such but only a criticism of its use—

Mr. McMaster: I should like to correct the hon. Gentleman with reference to the use of the regulator to help Northern Ireland. It is possible so to use it that the money brought in can be used on public works in these areas as, indeed, it has been suggested might be done in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Crosland: It would be extremely hard to get this discrimination between different parts of Britain, at any rate, even if it could be done in Northern Ireland. The conclusion is that there are serious practical drawbacks to the regulator, but, as I say, it is the best we have. We need some regulator of this kind, and that is why we on this side have never opposed it in principle.
There is also the constitutional point, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) referred, My hon. Friend expressed dark suspicions of the Chancellor's motives and intentions, to which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will pay attention, and consider with extreme financial rectitude. I would not myself assent to my hon. Friend's implied proposal that if the Chancellor used the regulator during

the Summer Recess to reduce taxation, the Labour Party should immediately demand the recall of Parliament in order to vote against it. It might be desirable, but I would hardly like such action to be automatic on our side. But if the Government are really thinking in terms of an autumn election after the results of the recent local elections, they must be more obtuse than I thought.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(INFORMATION AS TO GAMING.)

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Edward du Cann): I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, after "person" to insert:
not exempted from the operation of this subsection".

The Chairman: With this Amendment, it would be convenient for the Committee to discuss the Amendments in page 2, line 19, in page 2, line 34, in page 3, line 7, and in page 3, line 32, at end add:
(11) Nothing in this section shall apply to a travelling showman who provides facilities for gaming at a pleasure fair solely by the provision of amusements with prizes in accordance with section 49(1)(b) of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1963.

Mr. Ellis Smith: On a point of order, Sir William. Would you be good enough to signify which Amendments are to be called? I have been in the Lobby, but there is no indication there in the Chairman's list.

The Chairman: I am sorry to have to inform the hon. Member that his Amendment, in page 3, line 32, at end add:
(11) Information shall be obtained on—

(a) the total amount of finance received by association football clubs affiliated with the Football League;
(b) the total amount of finance made or taken out of the game by others not engaged in the games or their administration;
(c) the use made by those not engaged in the game of the Football League fixtures;
(d) the effect of a Betting Levy on the use made of the Football League fixtures.

is out of order as going beyond the scope of the Clause.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Further to that point of order, Sir William. I know that


Standing Orders, which I mean to observe, prevent a Member from asking why an Amendment is not being called, but they also provide that he can ask the Chair to give a reasoned explanation. I am doing that now for the guidance of hon. Members when we discuss the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". Before you make the statement for which I have asked, may I emphasise that Clause 2 is headed "Information as to gaming", which covers the Amendment in which I am specially interested.

The Chairman: The reason can be shortly given. The Amendment is beyond the scope of the Clause.

Mr. du Cann: Your Ruling, Sir William, that we should discuss the Amendments you have named with this one is, I am sure, most convenient for the Committee. I hope, however, that you will not immediately rule me out of order if I refer to what I believe to be the first appearance on the Opposition Front Bench of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland). I know that it would be the wish of the House that I should congratulate him on that distinction, and to say how much we all enjoyed his speech, to which we shall pay strict attention—as we always do to anything he says.
The purpose of this Amendment is to follow through my right hon. Friend's announcement in the Budget speech, when he said:
… I propose that the Customs and Excise should compile a register of all gaming institutions, including in this those often very profitable machines known as one-arm bandits."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1963; Vol. 675, c. 466.]
My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary went into the matter in slightly more detail in his speech on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Perhaps the most important of the four Amendments in my right hon. Friend's name is the Amendment in page 3, line 7, which is to insert a new subsection (7). Its purpose is to provide that Treasury orders may be made excluding certain forms of gaming—and perhaps in this context I can put "gaming" in inverted commas—from the fact-finding inquiry foreshadowed by my right hon. Friend. As my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has explained,

there is a great range of activities which come under the generic description of "gaming" and my right hon. Friend does not feel that it would be appropriate to have a comprehensive inquiry into these.
The convenient way of excluding certain gaming activities of the kind we have in mind is by reference to a Section of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1963. As the Committee will know, that Act is a consolidation Measure, a re-enactment of the 1960 Act. In following that Act, we are really looking to the particular promotions of gaming, which seems to us to be the point.
The principle by which certain forms of gaming will be excluded will commend itself. I hope, to the Committee. It is that we should distinguish between, on the one hand, what I may call "high-power" gaming, which may offer the opportunity to win substantial sums, on which we require comprehensive information, and, on the other, a wide range of very mild amusements for which the social legislation lays down the conditions under which they may be conducted. This common theme appears from the particular exclusions we have in mind, and I would mention the Sections of the 1963 Act and the sort of things they cover. In fact, I will more or less list the kind of amusements that we have in mind.
There is the gaming on cribbage and dominoes in public houses, on which Parliament specially allowed small stakes under Section 35 of that Act. It was the clear wish of the House that cribbage and dominoes as played in public houses should be included in the provisions of that Act. Then there is the gaming under Section 37—typically the single whist drive, organised on behalf of a church, in which the limits of stakes and prizes are strictly laid down and in which the proceeds go to other than private gain.
It is easy for the Committee to imagine many other activities which fall under this definition. There is the single game of bingo, for example, in the village hall, on behalf of the Red Cross or the local Conservative Party, or the Labour Party, or, if it has such things, on behalf of the Liberal Party which, as usual, is not now represented in the Chamber.

Sir G. Nabarro: They are all playing cribbage.

Mr. du Cann: In the third category are amusements with prizes which, in regard to Section 48, which deals with non-commercial entertainments such as bazaars and fetes, have already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary.
These are typically the side-shows which may be gaming and contain an element of chance, but which are allowed freely, provided that the "gaming" is not the sole or main inducement to people to attend, and provided that the proceeds go to purposes other than private gain. Examples are "roll-them-down" penny stalls at a fete organised on behalf of institutions which are entirely reputable; and again I exclude the Liberal Party, which has still not appeared. It would be quite wrong, in our judgment, to include these in the comprehensive inquiry. These and similar items were defined very closely in Section 43(3) and I do not imagine that it is necessary for me to rehearse that definition now.
My right hon. Friend proposes to add to the exclusions similar amusements with prizes when there is a commercial interest in them. We can do this by reference to Section 49 of the Act, because when the House of Commons allowed these forms of gaming it did so under strict conditions which safeguarded the social interest. We think it appropriate to take the view that this category of gaming falls very much on the side of mild gaming rather than high powered gaming.
4.45 p.m.
The Section applies to the amusements with prizes offered by travelling showmen, which must be incidental to the swings and roundabouts and the rest. If I may interpolate here, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Stevens) will already feel that the idea which he had in mind in putting down an Amendment is fully met. It was our intention to meet the point which he so properly drew to our attention. I hope that he will feel further that it would be inappropriate to specify in the Bill one single category which it is proposed to exclude, and I hope that that judgment may lead him to take a particular course very shortly.
We have in mind that the Amendment which we are moving, to give this exempting power in due course, will deal both with amusements which are found on fixed premises such as seaside piers, arcades, clubs and public houses, and the more mobile type in which my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone is more particularly interested. I am sure that this is correct, for unless one is very determined one does not make or ruin the family fortune at the pin-table. My right hon. Friend feels that all such amusements with prizes under Sections 48 and 49 of the Act may be properly excluded from the inquiry.
Finally, there are the amusement machines of Section 50 of the 1963 Act, which offer nothing more amusing than the return of one's coin or the opportunity to play the machine again. I think that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary was a little hard on these machines when we were discussing the Finance Bill on Second Reading. Personally, I always found great pleasure in "shooting the cats" offered for our aim on seaside piers and other places. These exclusions are conveniently self-contained while the effect of them, taken together, is to cut down the scope of the inquiry to organised gaming as one commonly thinks of it, that is to all casino-type gaming, to card-gaming clubs, to organised bingo, for example, as played in cinemas and dance halls, and to the gaming machines which, under conditions, are allowed in clubs only and which offer, comparatively speaking, significant money prizes.
I do not want to make too much of this point, but I should make it clear that this is a fact-finding inquiry and not a determination to tax. In particular, while I have the opportunity, I should like to comment on a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) on Second Reading, when he inquired whether Premium Bonds would be included in these inquiries. The answer is "No". They are not a form of gaming and are not included.
As for timing, soon after the Royal Assent, the regulations will be made and will be subject to negative Resolution, which I hope the Committee will think is appropriate for a matter of this kind.


The review of gaming proper is a necessary preliminary to the consideration of a comprehensive approach to the taxation of gambling to which my right hon. Friend particularly referred. This will be begun by registration of the promoters and the distribution of questionnaires according to the nature and type of promotion.

Sir G. Nabarro: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of timing, he will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) and myself raised this matter of a comprehensive gambling tax powerfully and with a good deal of Treasury sympathy. The previous Chancellor of the Exchequer sympathised in 1962, though I am not sure about this one. The Chancellor then said that he wanted to go into the matter thoroughly. Another year has now elapsed. This year, instead of positive proposals, we have this suggestion for a general inquiry and the registration of gaming establishments.
Could my hon. Friend say what length of time he thinks it will take to get this legislation carried out? Will he give an undertaking today that the Treasury will get on with the framework of proposed legislation for a comprehensive gambling and gaming tax—both of them, I remind my hon. Friend—in preparation for the Finance Bill of 1964 and not await registration being completed before my right hon. Friend starts to frame the legislation, because by that means we shall be in 1970 or later before we get anything done in this important matter?

Mr. du Cann: My hon. Friend has made several points, all of them completely fair. First, he asked specifically whether his views had the sympathy of my right hon. Friend. I assure him that he always has the sympathy of all of us at the Treasury.

Sir G. Nabarro: At some times more than at others.

Mr. du Cann: Lest my words should be misunderstood, I go further and say that there is not one of us who does not have great respect for my hon. Friend's views, which are always well and closely argued.
Coming to the more important point which my hon. Friend made, I should make it entirely clear to him and the Committee that the review which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) fore-shadowed was carried out. During the course of it, it became clear to us that we required further information. It is in order to obtain this information that we are now asking the Committee not only to give us these Amendments but, in due course, to give us the Clause.
My hon. Friend asks me to give a categorical assurance that no time will be wasted in the matter. I cannot say to him categorically that a tax of any particular kind will or will not be imposed on gaming or betting or on any part of it. It would be wrong for me to do that during our discussions on the Clause. On the other hand, I think it fair to point out that the remarks of my right hon. Friend during his Budget speech were entirely clear.
A Royal Commission has reported that gambling in general is probably a fair subject for taxation. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated very clearly during his Budget speech that he shares that view. What I regard as vital to remember is this. I dare say that it might have been possible to have introduced a tax in this Budget. On the other hand, had that been done, it would have been done on the basis of incomplete information. My right hon. Friend spoke of the experience of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) some years ago.
What is most important of all is that, if we are to have taxes on various forms of gaming or betting, the taxes must be effective. This is the consideration which we have had predominantly in mind. My hon. Friend is perfectly fair in expressing impatience. On the other hand, if I may "pull his leg" a little, I think that he is always very good at pushing at doors which are slightly ajar. I make no complaint about that, but I am sure that he would sooner have, as I and my right hon. Friend would sooner have, a tax which is a good tax because it is based on the fullest information rather than a tax which is not properly thought


out and, therefore, not fully effective and which may even have undesirable social consequences.
I pass now to subsection (8) of the Amendment in page 3 line 7. The Clause requires persons who provide gaming to notify the Commissioners of Customs and Excise within a specified period. Any person who provides gaming in the year ended July, 1963, must give notification by the end of August, 1963, that is, within one month, although I imagine that many of those who think that they will have to give us this information will probably be actively preparing it at this moment. Any person providing gaming for the first time in the year ending July, 1964, must give notification within one month.
As at present drafted, the Clause would automatically make it an offence for a person to fail to comply with these requirements, whatever the reason for the failure. The Amendment would give some discretion in the matter to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise by allowing them to extend the periods where they were satisfied that there were good reasons for so doing.
I suppose that this point reflects, in a sense, on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro). He emphasised the need for speed. We are fully aware of that, for there is much information to be collected, to be sifted and to be digested before the moment of decision comes. On the other hand, it would be very easy to imagine circumstances, particularly local circumstances, in which those responsible for producing the information might, for one innocent reason or another, fail to give it within the specified time. If this should happen, it would be inappropriate that we should, willy-nilly, make criminals of them all.
I hope, therefore, that the Committee will regard all these proposals as rational and fair. The Amendments give the Treasury power by statutory instrument to exempt sundry closely defined forms of mild gaming from the full effect of Clause 2. Again, I use the term "gaming" in inverted commas, for it is certainly our intention to be reasonable.

Mr. Geoffrey Stevens: I need hardly say that I should not have put on the Notice Paper

my modest Amendment to add a new subsection (11) had I not been reasonably confident, first, that the Government would accept it and, secondly, that the draftsmanship was impeccable.
The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) will, no doubt, recall my somewhat unusual skill and foresight in these matters. I must say, however, that when I tabled this modest Amendment of three lines, the object of which is simply to exclude travelling showmen from the operation of Clause 2, I never thought that the Government, when they saw it, would blow it up into a whole series of Amendments, one of which contains not only two subsections but two paragraphs within one of the subsections. I really did start something, and I had no idea that I should do that.
My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary says that, since the greater includes the less, I should accept his assurance that travelling showmen will be included within the mass of organisations or persons of one sort and another whose activities will be excluded. I have had some of this before. In this country we do not govern by Ministerial decree. Later, perhaps, I will tell my hon. Friend, elsewhere, what I am thinking of. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] In any of the other places which we like to think of, some of them more attractive than others, particularly when one is not discussing the London Government Bill.
I have in mind an occasion when a Minister gave a categorical undertaking, but, after the appropriate Section of the Finance Act had been put into practice by the Board of Inland Revenue, it was pointed out that the Inland Revenue had to be guided by what was in the Act and not by what the Minister had said.
I find myself in some difficulty here, therefore. This series of Amendments does not of itself specify the types of undertaking to be excluded from the operation of Clause 2. The Amendment in page 3, line 7, to insert new subsections (7) and (8), empowers the Treasury to make regulations, but that is all. If my hon. Friend will give a categorical assurance that one of the orders to be made by the Treasury will clearly exclude travelling showmen from the operation of Clause 2, then I shall willingly refrain from moving my Amendment.

Mr. Bellenger: Does the Economic Secretary think that the penalties under subsection (7) for withholding information are sufficient? As I understand, the total penalty would be £100 plus £3,650 for a full year, that is, £10 per day. Many of these places must be making considerably more profit than that.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I intervene because I think that I may be able to contribute usefully on the manner in which the Government may be able to obtain the information they want without causing undue difficulty. My observations may, perhaps, be of use not so much to the Government Front Bench as to their administrators. Then I shall take up a point which arises from what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Stevens).
First, it should be clearly understood that in a fact-finding inquiry into gaming it is of the essence to be able to go to the source from whence the information can come. I agree that that is not possible to get the necessary information by trying to follow travelling showmen round the fairgrounds of the United Kingdom. It is well known to many of us that it is possible to get all the information that we want in this connection from the Showmen's Guild and its excellent staff, but what has not been mentioned is that one can get information about all the amusement parks from the admirable secretary of the Amusement Caterers' Association, who, together with his staff, will be able to provide all the information which the Treasury wants as it affects those who are the subject of permits under what was the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960, and which is now the consolidated Measure of 1963.
What is, perhaps, more important is that the Treasury can obtain everything that it needs as regards amusement trades from the Amusement Trades Association. Therefore, I wonder whether it is necessary to go individually to members of the amusement caterers who are allowed to have a permit by a local authority under the Betting and Gaming Act with regard to exemption. I think that it is possible to get the information that the Treasury would want with regard to all the manufact-

urers from the Amusement Trades Association. So that information on what I might call the one-armed bandit side—that is, information on the operations in amusement parks and within the Showmen's Guild—is easily obtainable from the trade associations.
The matter is not so easy when we come to gaming clubs. The right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) is quite right in saying that these fines will be needed in order to get information about the more uneasy "joints" of the East End gaming clubs—

Sir G. Nabarro: And the West End ones.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Wait for it—but they will not be needed to obtain information with regard to the West End ones. The information should be easily and readily available without very much difficulty because all these institutions are advised by solicitors and accountants.
The task when it comes to bingo is not very difficult, because here the excellent assistance of the Mecca organisation and other organisations of that kind is available. We should be careful that we do not use a sledge hammer to crack a nut when it comes to information. Once one has taken the general powers, there should be no difficulty.
The question which I wish to ask with regard to the Amendment in page 3, line 7, which I am delighted to see, is whether it is wide enough? It deals with only two matters. First, it states what shall be exempted from the Clause, which, as I say, might be an association or a church fete, and, secondly, it extends the time where necessary. Subsection (4) says that the Commissioners shall have
such information as to the provision or intended provision by him of facilities for gaming, the premises and nature of the gaming concerned and"—
these are the important words—
other matters as the Commissioners may by notice in writing require.
This takes me back to my old law days, because that is not ejusdem generis with the rest of the provision. It entitles the Commissioners to obtain literally any other information that they may require on other matters. It is true that it has to be in connection with gaming under subsection (1), but that is all. This is a very wide provision.
If it is not intended to amend this provision, may we have a categorical assurance from the Minister that a questionnaire will be drawn up which we can see in order to ensure that the Commissioners do not probe wider than they should be allowed to probe. Alternatively, I suggest that the Government should incorporate in another place the nature of the questionnaire in a Statutory Instrument. I say this not because I do not trust the Government in this respect—I do—but because I do not trust the Treasury for the future in the event of the return to power of the Opposition.
I am blunt about this. If, in the future, I find myself sitting on the benches opposite, and some estimable hon. Members opposite are sitting on these benches, I shall be the first to say, "But how can you possibly have in a Statute words like 'other matters' and allow the Commissioners to probe in any direction that they wish?" and the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) will say, "You never said anything about that last year or the year before." I therefore say, as the Opposition should have said, that the provision is drawn too wide.
I appreciate that it has not been easy for my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary or for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers to get this completely novel matter ready in time, but, equally, it has not been easy for us to deal with starred Amendments on matters of this kind at a moment's notice.

Mr. Niall MacDermot: I support what the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) said about the wideness of the words "other matters" in subsection (4). I do not support the arguments which he adduced in favour of what he was saying, but it occurred to me when I was reading the subsection that this wording was very wide. Perhaps the Government will consider amending it to make it a little narrower at a later stage of the Bill.
My primary purpose in speaking is to ask whether the Government can make clear exactly what is the scope of the forms of gaming which they have in mind to exclude from the inquiry under the powers which they are seeking in the Amendment. The Economic Secretary was very forthcoming in explaining precisely what the Government had in mind,

but he did so in relation to Sections of the 1963 Act. I confess that I am not familiar with that consolidating Measure as a lawyer and have not a copy of it before me. What I should particularly like to ask is whether the Government propose to exclude all those forms of gambling which would have been covered under the old Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, or whether their purpose is narrower than that.
The Economic Secretary spoke, for example, of the single whist drive on behalf of a church, or perhaps a political party or the Red Cross. We know that there is a great deal of small gaming which is authorised under the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act in support of a large variety of charitable organisations and some political ones. But these are all non-profit-making bodies. They indulge in small gaming and not the large gaming in which the hon. Gentleman said that the Government were interested.
I think that I am right in saying that returns have to be filed with the local authority of gaming done under the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act. These returns are open to inspection and, therefore, the Treasury could obtain such general information as it wanted. It would he a great burden on the people trying to run these small lotteries if they had to make extensive returns to the Treasury in respect of matters which, in effect, they have to return already in another form to the local authority. Equally, under the pre-war legislation, there was an authorised form of gaming covering, I think, entertainments, fêtes, bazaars and similar activities. Would all these be excluded from the inquiries which the Treasury proposes to make under the Clause?

Mr. John Diamond: It will be a relief, Sir Herbert, to hear that the reason for my rising is not to ask you to accept a Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again until such time as the Liberal Party should appear to take part in our debates. I think that despite the anxiety that the Economic Secretary expressed, we might still be able to help the Government sufficiently by ourselves.
Talking about anxiety, I hope that I may remove the anxiety which the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) expressed. His anxiety was


that he did not wish these powers to vest in a Government which was not his own Government. He said that in a short time ahead would come the anxious time when we should be sitting on that side of the House and he would be sitting on this side. Having regard to the election figures of the Isle of Thanet, I wish to remove any anxiety from the hon. Member whatsoever.
As to the Amendment itself, let me say straight away that the experience and the pleasure that I have had in listening to the Economic Secretary on other matters proves to me that when he is not able to make a perfect case for an Amendment it must be a jolly bad Amendment. The case that he made today was far from perfect.
The first thing that one notices about the series of Amendments is that they are all starred. It is a very curious situation for a series of important Amendments to have been put down only yesterday on a matter which was the subject of a Government statement as long ago as the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. These are not last moment thoughts on the part of the Government. Perhaps they could not make up their minds whether the Amendments should go down or should not go down, or whether the Amendments were needed or were not needed, or whether the Amendments would be helpful at all.
That is the position in which we find ourselves. These Amendments do not help in any substantial way in removing the muddle that is already there. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) went to the heart of the matter when he said that he had not with him the 1963 consolidated gaming Act, and he was not, therefore, able to understand fully the references of the Financial Secretary. I hope that I may be able to help him, and, perhaps the Economic Secretary, by referring to the definiton of gaming which we find in the Act, because these Amendments bear precisely on this point. "Gaming" is defined in Section 55 as:
the playing of a game of chance for winnings in money or money's worth.
If one wants to know what that means, one has to refer to four more definitions. A "game of chance includes"—it does not say what a game of chance is but merely what it includes—

a game of chance and skill combined and a pretended game of chance or of chance and skill combined, but does not include any athletic game or sport".
"Winnings" are defined—again not what it means, but what it includes—as
includes winnings of any kind and any reference to the amount or to the payment of winnings shall be construed accordingly".
That again does not help us very much. The definition of "Money"—it does not tell us what money is, and I should not have thought that that was impossible of definition by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury—
'money' includes a cheque, banknote, postal order or money order".
So far all that we are told is that this Clause has effect with regard to information as to gaming, and gaming is defined by reference to three or four other definitions, each of which is not a definition but defines such activities as are included. Before we get to the Amendment itself, we do not know precisely what is intended to be covered by gaming, or at least not with sufficient precision. The argument which has been going on behind the scenes—we can only guess at the argument; it has not been fully disclosed who is arguing with who—with one side winning at the last minute and putting down this series of Amendments, does not help us at all to clear up this matter.
5.15 p.m.
We are still left with considerable doubts as to what is intended to be covered. The Economic Secretary tried to help us as much as he could. He said that what was intended to remain in the Clause was high-powered gaming and what was intended to be excluded was mild gaming. I do not think that this would appeal to any of my legal friends as a sufficiently accurate definition of what is intended: for high-powered gaming one has to make a return of information, but for mild gaming one does not. I am sure that the Economic Secretary knows where he intends to draw the line, but others of us do not. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, Lang-stone (Mr. Stevens) does not. He said quite properly that he was not prepared to withdraw his Amendment because he did not know whether the Economic Secretary was right in saying that it was not necessary for the Amendment


to be down, and that it would be covered by the Regulations which the Government were to bring in. The hon. Member for Langstone does not know; we do not know. Why do not the Government, when seeking information, define what information they want? When they have decided on a Clause, why do they at the last minute alter the whole tenor of the Clause? If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Clause, so far as I can see he did not need to bother with these Amendments at all. Subsection (4) says:
Any person required to give a notification … shall within such time and in such form as the Commissioners may require furnish the Commissioners with such information … as the Commissioners may by notice in writing require.
Let us assume that a series of persons are involved in what the hon. Gentleman so accurately and with such charming precision calls "mild gaming". Let us assume that a number of mild gamers give the information that they are engaged in mild gaming. The Commissioners then say to themselves, "We do not require any information from these mild gamers; we are not going to send them a form saying what they have to give to us." Why cannot it be left at that? There is nothing wrong with the procedure as laid down in the Bill. Why this further complication of these last-minute thoughts incorporated in these Amendments?
While on this topic, I want once more to object to the Government's method of legislation by regulations to be brought in at some future time, leaving the House to rely on an almost off-the-cuff recital by the Minister of the sort of thing which the Government had in mind to bring in by regulations. If the Government feel that it is really necessary to define more closely than the Bill does which information is to be sought and which is not, they ought to say so in the Bill. It ought not to be left to future regulations as to which there will be the usual negative procedure so that we shall not have an opportunity of debating them in any detail. They ought not to leave it to this kind of method to say which are included and which are not. We are left with the clear feeling that the Government, in their usual muddle on these

matters, have not thought out clearly what information they want and what information they do not want.
As I have had to be fairly critical of the Government's Amendments, I want it to be understood that neither I nor my right hon. and hon. Friends are critical of the Government's desire to seek information. We share the Government's view that it is wise to seek information, very broadly. This does not mean, any more than the Government say it means at present, that we are expressing any view, nor could we at the moment express any view, as to the use to which the information should be put. But I am authorised to say that on this side of the Committee we do not believe in putting a lot of people to the trouble of producing a lot of information unless it is thought possible that the information may be interesting and even valuable. It is implicit in seeking any information that we have at the back of our minds the possibility—I put it no more than that—that use may be made of the information in the course of time.
The Economic Secretary referred to the Royal Commission. It is clear that a number of people of a variety of political views are interested in the amount of money which is being spent in gaming and gambling of one kind and another and are interested in inquiring and finding out whether the unfortunate example—I hesitate to refer to it in view of the pleasant occurrence during the course of Question Time today—of the tax on gambling which had to be withdrawn during the period of a certain Chancellor of the Exchequer means that for all time it will not be possible to have a tax, not precisely of that kind, but somewhat of that kind.
We share the Government's view that it is worth while getting this information, but we regret that the Government, in a muddle, having made up their mind in a last-minute dash before the post went last night to get something on the Order Paper, have given hon. Members on both sides of the Committee an inadequate opportunity of knowing their intentions. They have compelled us to listen to the usual recital by the Economic Secretary about the sort of things which the Government might do later under Statutory


Order if they feel so disposed. But, in all the circumstances, we do not propose to vote against the Amendment.

Sir G. Nabarro: It seems to me that all these lengthy Amendments, and particularly that in line 7, must depend on the Treasury's interpretation in lines 16 and 17 of Clause 2(2) of what are "private premises" and what is a "domestic occasion". If we are to seek information about gaming and gambling generally but to exclude those two considerations, which the Clause evidently seeks to exclude, we ought to know exactly what the Treasury mean by "private premises" and "domestic occasion". I am doubtful about what is meant by "domestic premises". Does it mean just a house, or a public house, or a club? No doubt distinguished lawyers could tell me.

Mr. MacDermot: For a suitable fee we would give the hon. Member our opinion.

Sir G. Nabarro: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has encyclopaedic knowledge of these matters, will give the Committee the benefit of his advice later, gratuitously. Unless we are given these definitions it will be difficult for us to comprehend exactly what is the scope of the inquiries to be conducted under the Amendments.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Attorney-General ought to be here to give us this information?

Sir G. Nabarro: The learned Attorney-General should come into our deliberations on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". In the meantime, I have implicit confidence in my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to deal with the Committee properly in the matter.

Mr. du Cann: I will certainly do my best to reply shortly to the various points which have been made. If the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) would like me to go on longer than I had originally proposed, I will certainly do so. I have no wish to be discourteous to the Committee or to any hon. Member, and I am ready to give all the information which is in my possession. I simply thought that the

sense of the Committee was clear. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) was good enough to say that although he objects to the details of what we are doing, and to us generally, and to our ox and our ass and everything that is ours, nonetheless he is willing, on the whole and somewhat reluctantly, to let us have the Amendments. That being so, I thought that we could move on, and I did not wish to delay the Committee. But I have no wish to refuse to give any information which it lies in my power to give, and I will do my best, as always, to oblige the hon. Member for Islington, East.
First, I will reply to the entirely appropriate complaint made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) and the hon. Member for Gloucester about the fact that we are discussing starred Amendments and that the Committee has not been given better notice of what we had in mind. I have already apologised to several hon. Members personally for this. I have no wish to make any kind of excuse. The fault is entirely mine. I must take responsibility for it. I have apologised to certain individual hon. Members, and I quite willingly and somewhat ashamedly apologise to the Committee in general. If the Committee has been inconvenienced, I am extremely sorry. That was not our intention. The Amendments were perhaps fore-shadowed in the speech made by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who went into the matter with some care, but that does not answer the point which has rightly been made, and I acknowledge it.
I turn to the question asked, clearly, as always, by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Stevens), who rightly said that he was somewhat shy of assurances and also rightly said that he would not be put off by politeness. It is a good rule never to take one's payment in politeness. The trouble is that so many of us are obliged to do so. I wish to give him nothing of the sort this evening, nor do I wish to be anything but categorical in replying to him. I thought that I had been categorical in what I originally said, but if I was not sufficiently categorical I say


again, as clearly as I can, that the categories which he has in mind—and I am clear about them because they are closely defined—will be excluded from the provisions of the Clause and that that will most certainly happen by Treasury Order. I hope that that perhaps answers his question.
The right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) rightly drew attention to the adequacy or otherwise of the penalties. I can assure him that we gave the matter substantial thought and were of the opinion that these penalties were adequate. I appreciate that there are practical difficulties. We are dealing, perhaps exceptionally, with certain rather curious forms of enterprise. None the less, bearing all that in mind, we are clear that the penalties will be adequate and we do not expect any difficulties on that score. But, as I tried to bring out when moving the Amendment—and in part this is a reply to a remark by the hon. Member for Gloucester—we were concerned to see that there was proper discretion not to make criminals of those who are innocent in the matter.
5.30 p.m.
Can I put it in simple terms? Supposing the trustees of the village hall of the village in my constituency in which I hope shortly to be living, which is called Samford Arundel, and of which, I suppose, not an hon. Member has heard, trespassed inadvertently; I am sure that it is not the wish of any hon. Member to make criminals of them. However, we believe that for those who deliberately transgress and withhold information which Parliament in its wisdom thinks it desirable that the Treasury and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise should have, there should be a penalty strong enough. We have thought about this a great deal, and I hope that hon. Members will be satisfied with what I have said.
I now turn to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet. We in this Committee all know how wise he is in these matters, for we remember his interventions in earlier debates on this subject. We will bear in mind the generality of his earlier remarks. As for his comment about line 30 of Clause 2(4), ejusdem generis was one of the few subjects which I imperfectly understood when

I studied law, and I feel that I understood the purport of my hon. Friend's remarks. I hope that he will be reassured by the assurance he got, perhaps a little ahead of time, from the hon. Member for Gloucester. Whether he is or not, I can assure him—and he asked me the specific question—that it is proposed to have a questionnaire and that I shall make myself responsible for seeing that it is made available for the information of hon. Members.
It is not proposed to pry into a lot of matters for other than fiscal reasons when they are not the concern of the Treasury. The questionnaire will be closely designed for the specific job of obtaining the sort of information which it is necessary for us to have in deciding whether it is appropriate and possible to tax the gaming institutions, and that is all.

Mr. Bellenger: Will it be in statutory form so that hon. Members can take appropriate action if that is thought necessary?

Mr. du Cann: No. It will not be in statutory form, but I will see that the information is available to the House before the Statutory Instrument is laid so that there can be an opportunity for discussing it. I hope that that will meet the wishes and convenience of hon. Members.
I now turn to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North. If he will forgive my saying so, he seemed to be a little confused about our purpose. Again, to take up what the hon. Member for Gloucester said, I appreciate that to talk about high-powered gaming on the one hand and mild gaming on the other is very inexact, and I am certain that a lawyer as distinguished as the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North would not be satisfied with generalities of that kind.
However, I attempted to define, I thought fairly closely, what is intended to be covered under the general umbrella of both those heads, and from whet I understood of the hon. and learned Gentleman's questions I can give him the clear assurance that the arrangements which he had in mind, mainly of charitable or non-profit making undertakings in the commercial sense, would certainly


be excluded and would be coved by the Order. I think that I can fully reassure him that he need not be anxious about that.
He asked about lotteries especially. The legal position now is that large lotteries in general are illegal in the United Kingdom whilst small lotteries, covering the sort of cases he had in mind at bingo sessions or whist drives and so on, which are charitable or non-profit making in the commercial sense, are perfectly legal. It is not our intention to make any inquiry into them. That does not seem to be necessary, although it would be easy enough to obtain the information, as he pointed out, if we felt that we needed it.
I say again that the whole object of the exercise is to get information—and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gloucester for saying that he thought that this was right and appropriate—about the important gaming establishments where the prizes are large, the commercial bingo institutions, the places where chemin de fer and cards are played for stakes which are far beyond anything which one would find in any fairground or village hall or local institution. It is about the activities of such people that we want information.
I come finally to the sundry points made by the hon. Member for Gloucester. The main answer to the gravamen of his complaint that we were asking for these Amendments unnecessarily is that we were advised very much to the contrary. We thought that it would be quite wrong to bother innocent small people unnecessarily, particularly when there would obviously be difficulty about collecting the information.
If it is right that we should be concerned primarily to obtain information about the largest operators, I hope that he will agree with us that it is appropriate specifically to do something to exclude those who are concerned with the milder forms of gaming. This is the point which we wanted to achieve. That is the advice we had, and I am satisfied that this is the appropriate method of proceeding.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro) asked me to be more specific when I spoke of private premises and domestic occasions. I can certainly give him what advice I

can without charging a fee, as I am not a lawyer, as the Committee is well aware. I think that the passage in the Bill concerned means exactly what it says. Perhaps I can illustrate it by saying that if my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster received an invitation from me, or from anybody else—"Come to our private house and have a game of poker or chemin de fer, or roulette or anything else"—and if the only other persons present were personal friends of his or mine, that is obviously the kind of matter envisaged.

Sir G. Nabarro: But supposing, Sir Herbert, that you were a particularly generous friend and you invited me to do this forty or fifty times a year and you turned your front parlour into a gaming saloon and quite privately took a fee for the purpose of inviting your guests. [Laughter.] I am not fooling about, Sir Herbert. I am not a gambler myself, but I know these establishments. I am talking about the precedent which is created by a person using the atmosphere of private benevolence for the establishment of a gaming establishment.

Mr. Rees-Davies: That is commercial.

Sir G. Nabarro: It is not commercial. It is within the atmosphere of a private establishment. I am complaining of only two words—"private" before "premises" and "domestic" before "occasion". I hope that before the Bill leaves the House of Commons we shall have a precise definition of what is meant by those two words and removal of uncertainty about the phrasing "private premises" and "domestic occasion". Does it mean that one has to fulfil both those desiderata, or one or the other? [HON. MEMBERS: "Both."] I am not at all sure. There must be a precise definition of "private" and "domestic".

Mr. du Cann: I know my hon. Friend's anxieties, but he rose to interrupt me before I had had the opportunity entirely to complete the explanation which I was endeavouring to give him. What I had said so far was by way of example. If I went to his house, or he came to my house, and there was no one else present but our mutual friends and we played cards or any other of these games, that would obviously be an occasion which


would be within the terms of the Clause. By "private premises" I mean the ordinary home and by "domestic" we mean "domestic" in the English definition, that is, as opposed to commercial. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster inquired what would be the case if I invited him and other people to my house fifty times a year. The same consideration would apply if I asked him to my house three times a year and charged a fee. That would make it a commercial occasion, and it would not be the sort of instance envisaged under this Clause.
It is a plain matter of fact in every case, and as to the question whether or not the words "private premises" and "on a domestic occasion" are mutually inclusive or mutually exclusive, the fact is that they are mutually inclusive. They have to run together. I assure my hon. Friend that what is meant by those seven words together is, as I began by saying and slightly upset him by so doing, exactly what they are intended to mean if one construes them in English. I know that this is sometimes difficult to do in legislation, but I think that the meaning is plain.

Mr. Archie Manuel: I do not think that this is as clear as the hon. Gentleman is trying to make out. I am in sympathy with what he is trying to attain, but is it not a question of circumstance and not one of fact? The hon. Gentleman talked about private homes. If a man invited his friends to gamble in a converted stable which was not within the four walls of his home but still in the grounds of his property, would that circumstance alter the hon. Gentleman's view? I think that circumstances come into this as well as actual facts.

Mr. du Cann: I agree that circumstances come into this, and, of course, when I am talking about a private home I include the gardens, or the summer house at the end of the lawn, or whatever it may be.
The truth of the matter is that the Committee has a real anxiety to make certain that nobody should wriggle out of the provisions of this Clause. I appreciate that, and I see that a number of hon. Members agree with what I have said. I assure the Committee that we

have no intention of allowing anybody to wriggle out of these provisions, and we feel that the Clause as drafted is appropriate for this purpose.
Finally, I turn to the last point made by the hon. Member for Gloucester. He thought that perhaps there were some objections to the methods that we had adopted of going about this. He thought it would be better if the whole provision were incorporated into the Bill. I think there is a point in that, but I should like to explain why it is thought that this is the appropriate method.
It will be within the knowledge of the Committee in general, even if the majority of us are not experts, that one of the problems is that we are here dealing with a very flexible and developing situation. The position has changed considerably over the last two or three years, and it may well be that it will change still further. If, therefore, we were to stick inflexibly to the rigid provisions of an Act of Parliament we might find ourselves in difficulty in varying at short notice the definition of what we wanted to examine and what we did not want to examine.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster pointed out, we have, perhaps, taken a long time to get to the position where we are collecting all the information that we want. It would be a tragedy—and I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree with this—if there were to be further delays which we could avoid. In other words, we think it proper to have a flexible approach to this question of information gathering. We think that the method we suggest will give us a better opportunity of being flexible than we would have if we were to be specific in the Bill. This was not a matter of hazard or last-minute argument. There has been no last-minute argument in the Treasury. This has been carefully thought out, and we believe that we have the right method.
Having given those explanations, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gloucester for having defined the Opposition's attitude to the whole matter, and for having said that they think it right to seek information, I hope that the Committee will now be able to agree to accept these Amendments.

Mr. Stevens: Before my hon. Friend sits down, may I ask whether he has


noticed that we now have two Members of the Liberal Party with us? Would he therefore care to start the debate all over again for their benefit?

Mr. Donald Wade: On a point of order. As I have been here throughout the debate—[Interruption.]

Sir G. Nabarro: Further to that point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Herbert Butcher): Order. That is not a point of order.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Ede: In view of the Economic Secretary's speech, it would be churlish to do other than say that one appreciates the attitude he has adopted towards bringing this matter before the Committee by means of starred Amendments. Until I opened the Notice Paper today and saw these starred Amendments, I had no idea that this subject was likely to arise in the form it has in the course of our discussions today. I can think of several hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who, when we have discussed these small gaming and lotteries Bills on Fridays in private Members' time, have taken an active part in the discussions, and I am certain that they would have been here this afternoon had they had the slightest inkling that this subject was to be raised.
We are dealing with social customs on which varied and strong views are held by many members of the community and by some Members of the House who are not here this afternoon but who, I am certain, would have been here had they known this topic would be discussed. I hope that as we go through this matter, whether it be in Committee on this Bill or on the regulations and Statutory Instruments to which the hon. Gentleman referred, he will realise that these strong feelings are held and appreciate that it would be very bad indeed for the standing of the House if it were thought that this kind of matter had been rushed through in a way which prevented people who held strong feelings on the subject from taking part in the discussions.
My views have been accurately and adequately expressed by my hon. Friend

the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond). I do not think one can pretend that gaming does not take place, and I cannot help thinking that most people consider that if it takes place we should know as much about it as possible and that we should do what we can to prevent the high-powered gaming about which the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro) spoke. I do not participate in that kind of thing myself. A modest bet on Epsom Downs is the extent to which I anger my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), but there is a feeling that some people not very wise in the ways of this world are introduced into high-powered gaming.

Mr. Manuel: This point intrigues me, but would not my right hon. Friend agree that what would be considered high-powered gaming in one social group would not be so considered in another?

Mr. Ede: Certainly, but I was thinking of what would be regarded as high-powered gaming in any social group. If there is a fat pigeon strutting about who is worth plucking, this is precisely the sort of inquiry which the hon. Member for Kidderminster intimated he thought would be excused under the Bill. He thought that there would be no inquiry into the way in which that person was lured into a position in which the plucking could take place.
It is a pity that we have got off rather on the wrong foot because we are discussing starred Amendments. I regard the remarks made by the Economic Secretary as being an admirable apology to the Committee as a whole, and to any individual Members who may be concerned. He is to be congratulated on having the courage to make those remarks. I hope that they will not unduly prejudice discussions on this matter from now onwards.
I know that gaming takes place, and I know that some people are robbed in the course of it. I wish the Government well in their efforts to secure as much information as they can, so that we can arrange, first, that private premises and domestic occasions shall be exempt from the operations of the Bill, according to my definition of those words—and whether mine is the same as that attached to them by the hon. Member


for Kidderminster does not matter at the moment—and that, secondly, as a result of the information obtained we may be in a position, with knowledge to consider how far these activities should be regarded as suitable objects for taxation.

Mr. Fletcher: I am in full agreement with what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has just said. I intervene only because I was provoked into doing so by the Economic Secretary, who referred to me in his opening remarks. I did not take undue offence at what he said, although I thought that it was quite unnecessary for him to refer in the terms that he did to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) and his ox and his ass. It seemed to me that the frivolity with which he opened his speech was quite unworthy of the subject that we are now discussing.
I agree that it places the Committee in a very difficult position to have to discuss the matter by way of starred Amendments. But this is merely symptomatic of the general incompetence and ineptitude of the Government in their conduct of legislation and Government affairs generally. What disturbed me even more was the difficulty of ascertaining the philosophy of the Government in respect of gaming in general.
We have heard about high-powered gaming and its opposite, which is either low-powered or mild gaming. I am in sympathy with the objects of the Clause, which seeks to enable the Government to obtain as much information as they can in order to deal with the subject of gaming, but I cannot help reflecting that it is a little odd that they should have come to this conclusion so belatedly. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields will remember that when we were discussing the Betting and Gaming Act we tried to persuade the Government of the desirability of introducing Clauses into that Measure which would have required bookmakers and those who conduct betting shops, and so on, to produce reports so that the Government could have full knowledge of the profits made by those who engage in that form of gaming.
I hope that before we agree to the Clause we shall have further elucidation from the Economic Secretary as to

what is intended by the Amendment in page 3, line 7, which exempts gaming, in certain circumstances, from the provisions of the Clause. If the object of the Government is to obtain all the information they can to enable them to decide what taxation is appropriate, why should they draw any limits as to that information? It may be that when they have the necessary information they will decide that certain forms of gaming should be taxed and others should be exempt.
I am reminded of the fact that the Financial Secretary, in introducing the Second Reading of the Bill, said that he thought that
gaming which is promoted in aid of bazaars and fetes, and other good causes, in which the gaming is incidental to the main purpose and in which any proceeds go to other than private gain."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1963; Vol. 677, c. 39.]
would not be the proper subject for taxation. I am in sympathy with that general observation, but where do we draw the line? If the object of the Clause is basically to obtain information and not merely to introduce a basis for taxation, the more information the Government can get the better.
I do not dissent from the general objects of the Clause, but I feel that a good deal of elucidation is required. I sympathise with what was said by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro). What exactly is meant by the words "private premises"? Let us take the example of a club where gaming takes place. Is such a club private premises? [HON. MEMBERS "No."] Why not? Some clubs regard themselves as private premises. Surely the Economic Secretary will not say that a club is not private premises.
How do we distinguish between private premises and public premises. Is a club to which only its members are permitted entrance now to be regarded as public premises, although members of the public are not admitted? Hitherto, in other legislation, a private club has been regarded as private premises, in the same way as a private dwelling-house.
These matters require a good deal of elucidation. It is most unfortunate that the Economic Secretary should have to introduce an Amendment of this kind


at such a late stage, without giving the Committee a chance to examine it, and leaving us in such confusion about it.

Mr. Gower: I have much sympathy with what the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) has said. I appreciate what my hon. Friend said in his speech, namely, that he is most anxious that the mild form of gaming shall not be taxed, but that high-powered gaming should be.

Mr. du Cann: I must correct something that my hon. Friend has just said. He has suggested that I expressed the view that it would be appropriate for mild gaming not to be taxed. I did not express that view. I said that we did not require information about the mild form of gaming, but that we wanted it about high-powered gaming. I was careful, as were the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) and other hon. Members, to avoid any reference to future intentions in respect of taxation.

Mr. Gower: I cannot understand why his solicitude extends to such a degree that he does not want those who engage in mild gaming even to be questioned. I could understand it if he said that he did not want the mild form to be taxed, but I cannot understand why people who indulge in it should not be questioned. The questionnaire will not be elaborate. It will not be something that they cannot answer. I would have thought that the Clause as it stood originally was quite adequate. My hon. Friend is introducing a great deal of complication into a matter which should be simple.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Manuel: I wish to ask one or two questions of the Economic Secretary. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee are anxious to assist the hon. Gentleman to reach the port for which he is steering. But we wish there to be no misunderstanding, or for the results to be that many lawyers will gain lucrative business from the operation of the provisions in this Clause. The term "high-powered gaming" is wide. I do not know whether the Economic Secretary has a proper definition of gaming, but I take it that practically any form of lottery would be covered.

Mr. Rees-Davies: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the 1963 Act, he will find a definition there. It does not include every form of gambling or the lotteries to which he is referring. Still less does it include betting. There is a statutory definition.

Mr. Manuel: I pay tribute to the knowledge of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). He will be aware, if he has listened as I have to the debate, that we have talked about excluding certain small lotteries. That was said by the Economic Secretary and I prefer to await the hon. Gentleman's reply to my questions.
I wonder into what category the Premium Bond lottery falls into in this connection. That is a high-powered lottery. I do not know from what premises it operates. I should imagine that they are business premises of some kind. But the activities of "Ernie" are, I should imagine, very high-powered. Considerable gain ensues to a few people, but many consider that it is too much of a lottery for them to get any return on the money invested. These are the kind of questions which people in the street will be asking and to which we should be seeking answers.

Sir Stephen MacAdden: It is a little unfortunate that this matter should be discussed in the form of a starred Amendment. It is not something which has come upon the Treasury overnight. In the discussions on the Finance Bill of 1962 I raised this question with the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro) and it is rather a shame that a matter of such importance should be raised at this late stage in the form of a starred Amendment.
Last year, the Treasury admitted that the present form of taxation on gambling was inequitable and unfair and it was said that something should be done about it. Twelve months have gone by and now we have this starred Amendment which, I hope, will lead in due time to a satisfactory result. It is said that there is more joy among the angels in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth than over the ninety and nine just people who sin not. If the Treasury has at last come to the conclusion that the present form of taxation is inequitable,


and proposes to do something about it, let us be thankful for this belated conversion and wish well to the Clause which will give effect to that.

Mr. du Cann: It may be supposed, as the debate has gone on for a considerable time, that that is a matter which is tiresome for a Treasury Minister. I would say that it is nothing of the sort. I agree with the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who said that this is a matter of great importance, and it is, therefore, appropiate that the Committee should look at it with concern.
Many hon. Members have spoken, but we still have not had an intervention—I do not wish to provoke one—from the Liberal Party. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) entered the Chamber at 5.38 p.m. precisely and has not been present for anything like the whole of the debate.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields said that to come to an important decision with knowledge gained—

Mr. Wade: I may not have heard exactly what the Economic Secretary said. But if I may be permitted to clear up any misunderstanding, I would say that I have been in the Chamber since three o'clock, except when I went out to answer a telephone call and to sign some letters.

Mr. du Cann: I think, Sir Herbert, that you will not wish me to pursue the matter too far. I dare say that the purposes for which the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) absented himself from the Chamber were perfectly honourable. No one would suggest otherwise, but the fact is, and a number of comments have been made about it, that a member of the Liberal Party was not present. No fewer than three such comments were made and never denied, and they were factually accurate.
I was saying that the right hon. Member for South Shields said "with knowledge gained". That is the point and is what we are anxious to establish. I think that that is the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) and, to some extent, to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher). My hon. Friend was saying

that we should not make exemptions, but I think it appropriate that exemptions should be made.
My hon. Friend should think about the consequences of what he has said. If we do not make exemptions, we should be asking many people for information which we do not need. My hon. Friend should think about his own constituency—a very pleasant place—and the kind of mild gaming, as I defined it earlier, which goes on there. Does he wish that the proprietor of every village hall should be chased by Customs and Excise to give information? I am sure that is not appropriate and that upon reconsideration my hon. Friend would recognise it. It would be quite wrong for us to waste time in getting that sort of information.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) asked about the types of people from whom we desired to get information. I defined them, but I will willingly do so again, if it will assist the hon. Gentleman. They include those concerned with casino-type gaming and card gaming clubs; organised bingo—for example, in cinemas and dance halls—and the gaming machines which, under certain conditions are allowed in clubs, and in connection with which significant money prizes are offered. It is those types of enterprises about which we want to get information, and I am extremely grateful to those hon. Members who have said that it is appropriate to obtain that sort of information.
I hope that we may now proceed with the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 2, Line 19, after "person", insert:
not exempted from the operation of this subsection".

In page 2, line 34, after "premises", insert:
and are not being provided in such circumstances that the person providing them is exempted from the operation of subsection (3) of this section".

In page 3, line 7, at end insert:
(7) The Treasury may by order made by statutory instrument direct that persons providing facilities for gaming who provide them only in such circumstances (whether related to the kind of gaming, the place or occasion at or on which the facilities are provided, or any other consideration) as may be prescribed


by the order shall be exempted from the operation of subsections (2) and (3), or subsection (3), of this section; and—

(a) an order under this subsection may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order of the Treasury made by statutory instrument;
(b) if an exemption is revoked, anything which but for the exemption would have been required to be done before the revocation (and has not been done) shall be done before the expiration of one month beginning with the revocation.

Any order under this subsection shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(8) The Commissioners, if satisfied in any case that there is good reason why anything required to be done by or under the foregoing provisions of this section cannot be, or was not, done within the time limited by or under those provisions, shall extend the time by such period as appears to them to be required.—[Mr. du Cann.]

Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Early in life I learned that if one proposes to undertake a task, it should be done in a big way. If we meant business about this, we should have approached the matter in a big way. A number of hon. Members have put down Amendments which did not come within the scope of the Clause. But it was quite clear that the proposals in the Clause provide an adequate basis to enable hon. Members to raise the points they had in mind. This raises the big issue of sport and betting. Practically every country in the world spends millions of pounds on sport and leisure pursuits and on keeping the people fit.
It is disgraceful that this country should be spending a mere pittance—

Mr. Rees-Davies: On a point of Order. Surely the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) is miles from the point of the Clause. Is it not in order, on the Question before the Committee, to discuss only the matter of a fact-finding inquiry into gambling?
I have a great deal of sympathy with the point the hon. Member wishes to raise and I hope that he will raise it at the right time and in the right place. I realise that he wishes to discuss the question of football, pursuant to an Amendment which was ruled to be outside the scope of the Clause and which was, therefore, not called. He proposes, I believe, to go into the matter of whether or not there should be differences from

the point of view of football pools. I respectfully submit that this is outside the scope of the Question.
I hope, further, that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South will realise that many hon. Members want to speak on topics which are within the terms of order.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Herbert Butcher): The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) was, in my view, entirely in order in what he had said up to the point at which the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) interrupted him on a point of order. However, I think that he was at the point when he was getting very close to the edge and when it might have been my duty to call him to order.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Thank you for your Ruling, Sir Herbert. I will bear in mind what you have said. I have in mind the Ruling and explanation given by the Chairman, who was good enough to give me his advice.
I have had only an elementary school education. I am not trained in legal matters, but I have taken a long interest in Parliamentary proceedings. I take second place to no one in understanding what is and what is not in order in our proceedings in Committee. I rise tonight to say that in this country it has been left to Association football practically to finance the whole of sport and the people's leisure.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. As was quite properly pointed out by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), the Clause deals merely with the gathering of information.

Mr. Ellis Smith: If you will listen to what I have to say, Sir Herbert, you will see that I intend to provide evidence on gaming to show what should be included in the inquiry, and that it should be of a comprehensive nature. I have in mind the remarks made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer both in his Budget speech and in comments he made on Second Reading of the Bill.
There has been a great deal of uneasiness in the country about the proposed inquiry. This afternoon, the Economic Secretary has relieved a great deal of that uneasiness by his definite


statement and his reference to the application of legislation to this subject once the inquiry has been concluded. There is bound to be some uneasiness over, for example—and I would like to Treasury Ministers to listen to the evidence I shall provide—what may still happen. The Economic Secretary went a long way towards making it clear beyond any doubt what is to happen in the future and what would be regarded as private premises.
I accept what he said, but it may be possible for someone to erect a tent or marquee in a garden. In addition, I know that some clubs are run for development purposes for the straightforward playing of Association football. In many of the football divisions—and there can be no doubt about the correctness or honesty of the men who are running these clubs the clubs could not keep going by the financial income they derive from the gates. The result is that they have to depend—

6.15 p.m.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Member has been trying to tread a very narrow path, but is now over the edge, I am afraid.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I was going to show, Sir Herbert, how it is necessary to take into account for special treatment some gaming that takes place outside the sort of premises I have mentioned. This type of gaming should not be construed as other forms of gaming—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I know exactly what the hon. Member wants to do and I would like him to do it anywhere else except on the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Rees-Davies: If it will assist the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) to do what he wants to do, I will try to help him. I will put down a new Clause.

Mr. Ellis Smith: If the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) meant what he said at the beginning of that last intervention I will accept his offer in the manner in which I should. But if his offer was made in any other form, then I will deal with it accordingly. We are in the House of Commons, where we are able to act accordingly. Mr. Speaker has on several occasions called

for some cut and thrust in our debates. I thank the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet for his offer and would remind him that a good record in life needs no defence. We will leave that at that for now.
I was saying that the Clause provides for the holding of an inquiry and I was pointing out certain places and certain types of gaming that should be specially considered, for the danger is that, owing to the evolution of sporting activities in this country, the Clause may be used in such a way that it will have a worsening effect on the incomes of some sporting activities which should not be so adversely affected. Before the inquiry takes place the sort of evidence I have with me should be put on record and—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Member cannot do that on this Clause.

Mr. Gower: My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will have noticed that it appears that the Clause has the general support of the Committee. I would like, however, to question one remark made by my hon. Friend—

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order. Was not my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) continuing his speech?

The Temporary Chairman: I thought that he had given way to enable the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) to intervene.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I did, Sir Herbert, but only to enable him to ask a question.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I would remind hon. Members that we are in Committee and that there is no limitation on the number of times that an hon. Member may address the Committee.

Mr. Gower: I apologise to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). I thought that he had finished his speech. Do you wish me to proceed with my remarks, Sir Herbert?

Mr. Ellis Smith: If I may say so, Sir Herbert, the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) should contain himself. I am not going to ride two horses at once, like some hon. Members occasionally do, although realise that I am walking the tightrope.
I have been saying that I have certain evidence with me that should be on the record. The hon. Member for Barry should contain himself until I have completed my remarks. I must bring this evidence before the Committee before we part with the Clause, which has now been amended. I urge hon. Members to remember that starred Amendments are being accepted and that this imposes a greater responsibility on us because many more of my hon. Friends would have been present tonight had they known that the proposed inquiry will take place on the basis of what the Economic Secretary has told us. As a result of these starred Amendments the whole thing has been sprung on the Committee.
Let me make clear, to be fair to the Economic Secretary, that I think he was most generous in his explanation and apology. When a man is big enough to do it in that way we ought to accept it. He was very generous, so anything I say now is not to be taken as a criticism of the Economic Secretary, but I must emphasise to the Chair and to hon. Members who do not agree with me that this imposes upon us a greater responsibility than ever to watch these matters before parting with this Clause.
I have said that this proposal could have a serious effect on sporting activity. I have evidence to show that this inquiry of a comprehensive nature could affect some legitimate activities which legally can be considered as gaming, but which in the generally accepted sense are not gaming because they form part of a comprehensive way of raising funds to keep a sport going. Association football is the main source of this income. It is providing millions of pounds for activities in this country and a very small percentage—

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member is now trying to debate on the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill", an Amendment which earlier had been ruled out of order by the Chair.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I accept that Ruling, as I must if we are to make progress.
I am trying to provide evidence, seeing that that has been ruled out of order, to show that the points I am making should be considered before legislation

is prepared. If that is not done some sections of the sporting public will be unfairly dealt with. The legislation will be applied to them as a result of the inquiry. I ask that all this should be included in the inquiry. I am reinforced in that desire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Economic Secretary, who have repeatedly said that they want a comprehensive inquiry. That means an all-inclusive inquiry. That is why I want to get this on the record before we part with the Clause.
I hope that as a result of this brief discussion contributions to the debate will be made by many of my hon. Friends. This is a Committee in which everyone can take a part. No one has any special rights, no matter what is arranged behind closed doors. This is a democratic institution. I hope that the Clause will be fully discussed and debated on the lines on which I have started, so that we may do the right thing for those who provide the biggest proportion of finance for sport in this country. We must be on our guard to see that any future legislation which is prepared as a result of this inquiry shall not have a detrimental effect on the people for whom we are trying to speak.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I want to come to the point that is contained in the heart of this matter in the Clause. This is to be a fact-finding expedition by a number of people, a body of administrators who, if I may be allowed to say so, are not necessarily people with knowledge—certainly not intimate knowledge—of the matters into which they will inquire.
The reason why it has been necessary to have this quite novel approach by the Treasury by a Clause of this kind is that in the ordinary way it is not the task of officials of the Customs and Excise to find out about the details and technique of organisation in the betting and gaming industry. If they are to obtain information and that information is to be with a view to proposed legislation by way of new taxation, it is necessary that they should know on what principles and for what purposes they are collecting that information. I want to apply my mind, because this is the only opportunity, to what principles they should have in mind in considering this matter.
First, this is the purpose of the patience, the restraint and the wisdom which has been shown by the Chancellor in refusing to be bulldozed into some form of legislation until he is properly and effectively informed about it. I wish that one could say the same about other Chancellors on many occasions in our history. My right hon. Friend and those assisting him are very much to be commended for not plunging headlong into legislation which would have been completely fatuous if introduced this year without the relevant information before him. Incidentally, part of the information about football and betting can be obtained.
Here are the principles. There has to be parity of principle in taxation over the whole field of betting and gaming, of gambling as a whole in all its fields. The second principle is that whatever proposed taxation there may be must be easy of collection. If a fortune is to be spent in trying to collect it it will not be worth while. People will find some very surprising results. The Press has been quite wrong about the immense figures suggested in respect of gaming because the Press has concerned itself only with turnover and not with the reality of money spent on gaming, still less that on betting.
Thirdly, it must be a tax which is reasonably incapable of evasion. That will provide considerable difficulties both in the gaming and betting fields. Fourthly, it must be politically desirable. I do not mean party political. It is true that one can heavily tax out of existence the shillings of ordinary working men and women. Fifthly, it must be reasonably acceptable both to the industry and to those who engage in betting and gaming. If those principles are considered—

Mr. Wade: Will the hon. Member allow me—

Mr. Rees-Davies: I do not want to be interrupted at this stage because I want to develop my argument, for it takes some thinking out.
It will have been realised by all who have had to apply their minds to this matter that, broadly speaking, there are two classes of possible tax. At an early stage it will be necessary for the Chancellor to give some guide to his adminis-

trators in this regard. There is what I call the licensing type of tax and there is what has been called the turnover tax. This is not the moment to give reasons why a turnover tax is quite impossible to be introduced. I do not propose to go into the argument—

Mr. M. Foot: The hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), who was dealing with a somewhat narrower point, but the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet is now going on to describe a general taxation system which he would like to see introduced. Would not that be a matter for a future Budget?

The Temporary Chairman: If the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) will look at Clause 2 he will see that subsection (1) provides
to what extent it is expedient to impose taxation in respect of gaming.
I understood that the remarks of the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) were a somewhat lengthy preamble to discussing that part of the Clause.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: I wish that you would assist the Committee a little more, Sir Herbert, in reading the full extent of the Clause. Subsection (1) states that
The following provisions of this section shall have effect to provide information for determining whether, and in what manner and to what extent, it is expedient to impose taxation in respect of gaming.
With respect, that is quite different from the later words which you have taken out of context, because the principle of the Clause is to provide information. I suggest, therefore, that the hon. Member is out of order.

The Temporary Chairman: Mr. Rees-Davies.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I am sorry that the hon. Member did not take in what I said earlier, that to obtain information about anything it is, perhaps, desirable to know what one wants to obtain information about. If it is to be about taxation, one would want to know the principles which should be set down for generally broad consideration in introducing it.

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order. You have just come into the Chair, Sir Robert, but when my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) was speaking on this point, he was pulled up three times by the previous occupant of the Chair, because when talking about gaming in connection with football he was ruled out of order. We are now getting a long introduction to a lot of methods of gaming about which we should have information. If the aspect which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South was raising was ruled out of order, I think that what is being said now should also be ruled out of order.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I am on a quite different matter, Sir Robert, as I think the hon. Member knows.

Mr. Fletcher: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. May we have your ruling whether it is in order on the Question "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill" to have a wide discussion, which, I gather, was ruled out when my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) spoke as to the principles on which gaming should be taxed?

The Deputy-Chairman: Remarks on the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill", should be directed chiefly to information, and by way of illustration to the purpose for which the information is required, reference to taxation proposals such as the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has made is in order. The merits cannot, however, be developed.

Mr. Rees-Davies: To save the time of the Committee being wasted by repeated interruptions on points of order, I will leave that aspect, Sir Robert, and pass straight to the heart of the matter on the precise question of the aspect of gaming.
The first question which arises on sub-section (1) is that the Government are asking for information in respect of betting. That immediately prompts the inquiry: why not for betting? The answer is, presumably, that the Government have sufficient information. I agree with that if that has been the reply which they have given themselves, save

only that they clearly do not have a sufficient knowledge of the bookmaking industry when they consider the betting side of it. They can, however, obtain that information without the need to pass an Act of Parliament to get it. Therefore, I share the view that the only part of subsection (1) which is necessary is to cover the aspect of gaming.
As I said in part earlier on an Amendment—which was in a fairly narrow argument—when one is dealing with gaming as it is statutorily defined, and as I interrupted an hon. Member to say, there are four classes with which one is concerned to obtain information which may not be readily available. It is in those four fields only that there might be a potential liability to tax.
There is, first, bingo, which is sub-divided into two classes, the large commercial operator and the small village hall. The Government have rightly indicated that they are not concerned with fetes and things of that kind. That is one field. As to the facts, this is a quid pro quo. Some people assume that when the examination has taken place, it is obvious that it will be fruitful for taxation. To balance that, I am merely saying that I would not suggest that that conclusion should automatically be reached. It is certainly not my conclusion after having had the opportunity of seeing it thoroughly in that field.
The next aspect is what might be called the amusement caterers, Showmen's Guild aspect. Those are the people who, by permission under the Betting and Gaming Act, operate in a fairly small compass. Anybody who thinks that very much taxation will be obtained out of members generally of the Showmen's Guild had better think again. It is not a very fruitful source. They are not people of great wealth. There is not likely to be a big turnover there. Nor is it likely to be so in the case of the Amusement Caterers' Association and its members, although there may be some.
In any event, the matter can be looked into. The information can be obtained from those people and from their organisation with ease. These are the small men of business who have carried on an important part of our tourist industry for a long time. Certainly, they would give the information readily. I do


not suppose that there would be difficulty in obtaining it.
The third category is that of what I call the casino club. Here again, one has to be careful, because in considering the matter the Government do not want to be bothered with bridge or whist clubs and that kind of thing. They are concerned about chemin de fer. The House of Commons is apt to be a little bit like the newspapers. We seek the publicity, we seek the sensational and they are seen to assume that the country is nothing but one gigantic Crockford's. There is only one Crockford's, not a hundred. There are very few gaming clubs which operate to any substantial profit. Perhaps in the country as a whole there are no more than twenty.

Mr. Manuel: No.

Mr. J. T. Price: Rubbish.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I object very strongly to the hon. Member's interruption. I object to being called anything. I ask the hon. Member to rise and withdraw that remark immediately. I challenge him straight away to say anything like that outside the House of Commons. If he does he will know exactly what has hit him.
I say categorically—and the hon. Member can prove me wrong if he likes—that there are not more than about two dozen clubs being run on a proprietary basis which are making a substantial profit. If the hon. Member likes to be able to disprove that, I will be perfectly willing to look into it, but the assumption that thousands of clubs are giving a large profit is entirely wrong. I very much dispute what the hon. Member suggests and he knows it.

Mr. J. T. Price: On a point of order. The hon. Member has challenged me to substantiate something which I have said or to withdraw it. Hon. Members know me sufficiently well to know that I respond if challenged. I have no wish to be unfair to the hon. Member or to anybody else, on either side, on any occasion. If the hon. Member feels that I have been unfair to him in saying that he was talking rubbish, he must take that rap because he is being most provocative in saying that not more than twenty of these large-scale gambling casinos exist in

this country, when everybody knows they do.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. What is the point of order?

Mr. Price: I would not wish to pursue the matter further, Sir Robert, but certainly this charge should not be flung about the Committee in the hope that the hon. Member will get away with it, as he gets away with it in the Law Courts.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Whether the hon. Gentleman likes to pay me a backhanded tribute elsewhere is neither here nor there. I repeat that the general impression that there is a very large number of people successfully operating in any aspect of gambling is inaccurate.
I have said that the third category is the casino club. Having obtained that information, which the Government will have the power to do, the House of Commons and the Chancellor of the Exchequer should then have all the information about gaming. Do they need it in any other field? Clearly, they do not need it for greyhound racing. They have it. They do not need it on horse racing, because they have it already either through the Betting Levy Board, or, if they have not got it through the Betting Levy Board, they have it through the number of betting office licences. Therefore, the Revenue already has a fair amount of information.
Only one other point really arises, and that is under subsection (2). The point is whether the expression
on private premises and on a domestic occasion
means what it says—that is, that only personal gaming by private people in their own homes is excluded. I personally think that this is admirably drawn. I think that it means what it says, that this is for people engaging in their domestic life in private gaming. I do not think that it is necessary to amend it, although I say so with all deference to those who have to advise the Government on the legal aspects. It should be borne in mind that to engage in gaming and make a profit a club has to be set up under what was Section 16 of the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960, If that is done, the proprietors are then entitled to make a charge for the gaming and impose an annual subscription. Consequently, the


fly-by-night parties—the people who ran illegal gaming at night—have gone because they have set up gaming clubs instead.
Therefore, under this one will be able to see not only how many gaming clubs there are and have a register of all of them but, what is much more to the point, one should be able to see whether those gaming clubs are operated at any substantial profit which in the out-turn would bring forth any worthwhile revenue. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro) is not here. The Committee will remember that on Second Reading and on other occasions my hon. Friend criticised my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for not having taken action on a turnover tax in betting. My answer to my hon. Friend is that it would have been wholly wrong to do so, because to have introduced a betting tax upon the betting community would have been very inequitable unless it had been done upon the gaming community as well.
It may be—I know not; I shall not express a view—that when the Chancellor considers the whole matter he will find that there is no worth-while revenue to be obtained from gaming. He may find that there is some revenue to be obtained from only one small section of betting activities. Then he may have to come to the House of Commons and say, "I still want to go on with some form of betting tax". The House might well give him leave to do that if he could explain that taken as a whole he was not being inequitable, if there was not a worth-while revenue to be obtained from a certain section.
After all, we are concerned with the fiscal aspect. My right hon. Friend was absolutely right to resist the blandishments of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster to introduce a tax on any aspect of gambling without having all the facts before him. We owe my right hon. Friend and those who advised him a debt for not giving us ill-conceived legislation in connection with this great industry. The industry is of immense importance to tourism. Although, in due course, it may well be right to tax it, it is clearly right that those concerned with taxation should take some trouble to educate themselves in this rather complex and difficult subject.

6.45 p.m,

Mr. E. C. Redhead: I do not wish at this stage to discuss the question whether it is expedient to introduce a tax on gaming, or, indeed, the ultimate form any such tax might take. That is a premature exercise, because I think that it has been universally agreed in the Committee, with all the shades of differences there have been, that there is a justifiable case for an inquiry and investigation.
I do not think that the Committee should part with the Clause believing that it fulfils its purpose, unless we can secure further assurances from the Economic Secretary about its implementation. Notwithstanding the Amendments which have been made, I am doubtful about the efficacy of the Clause to achieve the purpose which I understand the Chancellor has in mind. In this, I am principally concerned with what I conceive to be the administrative problem. It is all very well for the Committee to say, in a general way, that it is right and proper to have an inquiry of this character and charge a Government Department to undertake it. I think that we ought to consider whether the machinery that exists is adequate for the purpose for which the Clause is designed.
I appreciate the attractiveness of the proposition of a tax on gaming to any Chancellor of the Exchequer, particularly when he has been fortified by the expression of view of a Royal Commission. It is a very attractive possibility as a source of additional revenue, particularly as so much of the expenditure on betting can be regarded as anti-social or, if not anti-social, not achieving any discernible social purpose and it would certainly not involve any hardship if a tax were imposed.
Some forms of gambling are already taxed. Others are not. The whole subject is riddled with inequity. Nevertheless the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Economic Secretary will appreciate that it will be exceedingly difficult to administer taxation here. The Economic Secretary himself used the words that here we are thinking of dealing with some very curious enterprises. In the light of past experience—the very tentative experience we have had in betting duties—the statement that we are dealing with very curious enterprises is


perhaps a modest one. I can understand the Chancellor's desire for information, and I applaud his approach of seeking this before precipitately rushing into legislation for taxing further things before he has reached a firm decision as to whether, in what manner and to what extent it would be expedient to apply a gaming tax.
It is obvious from what the Economic Secretary said that he has been warned by the Board of Customs and Excise of the very unhappy experience of the earlier betting duty, which broke down because it proved to be administratively unworkable. I do not think that anything is more disastrous for any Government Department than to be charged with some responsibility which, in practice, it is unable to carry out. For this reason, it is abundantly necessary that a mistake—because undoubtedly there was a mistake earlier—should not be repeated. It is not good for the morale and prestige of the Department that it should seem to break down, when it is not due to the fault of the Department itself but to the weakness and lack of perception of the Legislature which charges it with the responsibility.
While I offer no objection in principle to the Chancellor's objectives, that does not connote any firm commitment on our side about any proposal that might evolve from the inquiry. We would wish to see the form and extent of any firm proposal before finally committing ourselves to it.
I am, however, doubtful, about the effectiveness of this Clause, as amended, to obtain effective basic information for guidance. In the nature of things, it has to be appreciated that the interests involved here are bound to be resistant to the very idea of an eventual tax on their operations. Bearing that in mind, and that these are some very curious enterprises, we need not expect very willing co-operation in providing the information that we need to come ultimately to a sound decision.
The exemptions which the Economic Secretary, in his earlier Amendment, clearly foreshadowed, offer further grounds for possibilities of dispute and dubiety in trying to implement this inquiry. The very flexibility which the

hon. Gentleman claims to have introduced into the Clause is itself calculated to enhance the difficulties of the officers of Customs and Excise who will be charged with this responsibility. The Clause requires that persons who provide facilities for gaming shall notify the Commissioners of that fact, and it is perfectly true that subsection (7) specifies penalties for failure to comply—and they are quite heavy penalties, which one of my hon. Friends thought might have been made even heavier.
It is all very well to put this in statutory form, but what sort of publicity is to be used to make known this new statutory obligation? I ask that because, when one is imposing a tax in a clearly-defined, well-established and wholly reputable realm—Purchase Tax, for example—the Department concerned knows where to direct its publicity in order to make traders aware of their obligations. Here the Department starts with no basic information at all. It has to rely upon those concerned learning through the ordinary means of Press publicity, and the like, that they have these responsibilities. I am not sure where the Department will direct its publicity in order to make known to those who will be subject to these provisions that they have these new statutory obligations.
It is clear that the Treasury has apprehensions about the possibility of a lack of co-operation in this regard, because subsection (5) gives power to an officer of the Department to enter premises where he has reason to suspect that gaming facilities are provided but have not been notified. That is a precautionary measure so that, where those who have this new obligation do not comply voluntarily with its requirements, there may follow an investigation of this kind. Again, I would ask: where is the Customs and Excise officer to obtain the information that would justify him making entry upon these premises?
The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) said that there are certain quarters—largely those which will come within the ambit of the exemptions in the Economic Secretary's Amendment—where the information is readily obtainable from reputable organisations, but those will be very largely now outside the scope of the inquiry. We are dealing with some intangible and,


perhaps, less reputable organisations when we think in terms of the high-powered gaming to which the Economic Secretary has now confined the purpose of the Clause.
Furthermore, in all seriousness I ask: is the Chancellor satisfied that the complement of officers of Customs and Excise—already, let me remind him, very severely overloaded with their normal work—adequate to undertake this fact-finding operation? Further, are they sufficiently well equipped to undertake the kind of inquiries that will apparently be necessary in this connection? In general, they have here no basic experience upon which they can rely to obtain the necessary information.
It seems to me that the Department will have to rely not so much on the ordinary Customs and Excise officers, who already have their hands rather full, but to an increasing extent—if the information to be extracted is to be worth anything at all—upon the investigation branch of that Department to carry out much of the probe, involving, as I suspect it will, a good deal of the detective work for which that special investigation branch is renowned. Here, again, it is important to remember that the investigation branch is itself already understaffed, and inadequate to deal with other types of tax evasions and frauds.
It is not so long ago that the Public Accounts Committee severely criticised the Department for its failure to catch up with some rather large Purchase Tax evasions in jewellery and other commodities—

Mr. Rees-Davies: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the officers will have the assistance of the police and, if there is gaming, there must be premises? If the police tell the officers where the premises of the club are, is it not quite easy for them to be able to enforce this? It will be a matter of bricks and mortar—will not that make it much easier for them?

Mr. Redhead: Many of the enterprises with which we are concerned in this Clause will be as shy to reveal their activities to the police as to the Customs and Excise. Therefore, while I would welcome the co-operation of the police, and expect it, I am not certain that that co-operation will necessarily ferret out all the information requisite for the inquiry.

I was making the point that the special investigation branch, the aid of which will have to be invoked, is already understaffed, and not able to cope adequately with the work of tax evasion already existing—especially over Purchase Tax. It is not appropriate to press that matter now, but I may have something more to say about it later.
If, as I apprehend, the information obtained by the implementation of the Clause should prove to be sparse and inadequate, we have to ask how any sound and effective decision on the imposition of a tax can be reached. If a decision is reached, and if proposals are brought before the House based on inadequate information, any duty imposed is likely to founder. It is likely to encounter administrative problems that can, in the end, only bring the law into disrepute.
I plead with the Economic Secretary and the Chancellor not to rush into this matter, however attractive it may be. If it should prove that this information is not satisfactory as a basis of sound decision, I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to rush into a decision which might, in the end, prove thoroughly disastrous from every point of view. There must be assurances of adequate machinery to undertake the inquiry, otherwise we shall either have half-baked and ineffective proposals or be confronted with what the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro) feels to be an interminable delay.
Notwithstanding everything that has been said, I hope that the Economic Secretary can give assurances that the Department will be—if it is not at present, as I suspect it is not—adequately fortified, and that the officers who have to do the job will be provided with adequate opportunity to fulfil the purposes of the Clause.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: As the debate has proceeded it has become more and more apparent that the limited scope of the Clause is to be regretted. It was my intention earlier simply to ask a question of your predecessor in the Chair, Sir Robert, and also a question of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, but the observations of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), who did his utmost to try


to prevent my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) from making what appeared to us quite valid points, seemed to indicate that my hon. Friend was probably in order, on the assumption that the interpretation of Clause 2(2) was correct.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I thank my hon. Friend. The subsequent proceedings have proved that I was in order.

Mr. Wilkins: The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet said that there should be parity of principle over the whole field of gaming and gambling. He then went on to refer to the bookmaking industry. He said that many of us did not understand the importance of that industry in this connection. He was attaching this interpretation to subsection (2) and was referring to bookmakers.
I wanted to ask the Financial Secretary whether the Treasury had not received representations towards the end of last year from the Football Association asking it to consider certain aspects of the betting industry in relation to football. We all know full well that thousands of private bookmakers and certainly the pool betting organisations make millions of pounds out of football. I would class football as a pretty big industry and it seems to me quite reasonable that the Football League and the Football Association should ask the Treasury to inquire into the money that is made out of football.
I interpret the Clause as meaning that the Treasury is anxious to know the sources of gaming and gambling which should provide revenue for the Exchequer. If the Treasury asks for this, is it not fair to ask the Treasury to look at football and inquire whether there are not people who are taking a mighty big rake-off from that industry who ought to be making a far bigger contribution to the Exchequer?
This is the simple point which I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South wanted to make. I submit that it was a fair point. I do not question the Ruling by the Chair. I think that the scope of the Clause has been revealed only as a result of a speech by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet, who was so critical of my hon. Friend. Therefore, if it is not possible for us to develop a case along these

lines on behalf of the Football League and the Football Association, would you advise us, Sir Robert, whether we would be in order to put down a Clause which would embody this requirement?
There seems to be some doubt whether a new Clause is practicable, although the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet, in trying to close down my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, suggested that it was possible and said that he would help my hon. Friend to draft it. We should like to know whether there is any other means whereby we can raise this case in Committee, assuming that it is not embraced within Clause 2(2).

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that if the hon. Member put down a new Clause it would be the best way to deal with the matter, though, of course, I am not saying that necessarily the Chair would select it, or that it would be in order.

Mr. M. Foot: After having listened to the whole debate I should like to add a few words. Some very curious contradictory reasons for supporting the Clause were given by hon. Members. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) is supporting it, because he thinks that the Chancellor is not being bulldozed into hasty action in imposing a betting and gaming tax, whereas the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro) and the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) supported it because they think that it is a hasty process for introducing a system of betting tax. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) supports it because he does not think that it works, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) supports it because he does not understand it. These seem to be an extraordinary conglomeration of reasons for supporting the Clause.
It all goes to prove how the Government have gone about the proposition in the most confused manner. I believe that this is why my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) was put in difficulties. He, like the rest of us, thought that what the Government were proposing was to have an examination made so that they could discover the facts, in order that the


Government might eventually decide on whether or not there should be a general betting tax. It has been said that we have information on some aspects of betting and gambling and, therefore, we do not need it in this connection. But there are other aspects of betting and gambling which have been left out of account. These, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South illustrated, include forms of gambling which are associated with far the most popular sport in the country.
I would have thought that the Government would have taken that into account. Instead of that, the matter is dealt with not only by a Clause which is supported for all these contradictory reasons, but by a Clause which has had to be amended at the last moment by means of starred Amendments introduced by the Government. The Economic Secretary said that he was sorry that he had to introduce the starred Amendments. Nobody could have apologised more gracefully than the hon. Gentleman. He has received showers of congratulations on all sides. Indeed, his most brilliant Parliamentary triumph so far is the error which he has made in introducing an Amendment in the wrong style. He has been more flatteringly received on this occasion than on any previous occasion that I can recall and, therefore, I would advise him to do it again; but he has not explained to us why it happened.
The hon. Gentleman has not told us how this unholy mess occurred. He is very gallant. He says, "It is all my fault. No civil servant assisted me in this unholy botch I made of it. There I was slaving away in the Treasury and all by myself I managed to achieve such a result that we could only discuss the major part of the Clause when I had introduced these starred Amendments at the last moment." Nobody, of course, believes the hon. Gentleman, even when he says it so charmingly. If he had really explained what had happened he would have further vindicated my hon. Friends who say that the Clause is probably unworkable.
The Government woke up to the fact that it was unworkable and, therefore, they put down Amendments in the belief that they would make it workable in this way and solve the problem in this style,

but, as far as I can see, they have not solved it. This is a quite novel procedure for investigation in Finance Bill procedure. As the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet has said, a Finance Bill should be concerned with taxes to be imposed, money to be raised, and general financial arrangements. This kind of inquiry should have been carried out separately. If it had been done separately the Economic Secretary would have escaped the advantageous embarrassment he had about his starred Amendments, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South would have been able to introduce into that same inquiry the absolutely cognate matter which he has introduced in the debate, and as a result we would not have had this separation.
Now, on the high authority of the Chair, we are told that it may be possible for my hon. Friend to put down a new Clause to deal with the very important matter which he has raised. I accept the authority of the Chair, but I do not know quite how such a new Clause would work. Would it set up a further and different form of inquiry to examine football finances? It ought to be done quite separately.
What the Government should have done, if they wanted more information, was to have another inquiry. They have had so many that perhaps they thought that they would get away with it by pretending that they were doing something else. But all they were doing was setting up a kind of Royal Commission by the back door. They do not like saying that they will have another inquiry, so they dress it up like a provision in the Finance Bill, but the more one looks at it the less does it look like a provision in the Finance Bill. I see that the Economic Secretary again very graciously nods. He agrees with everything I say. If he goes on like this, he will never get his Bill.

Mr. du Cann: I was nodding not so much in agreement with everything said by the hon. Gentleman as to indicate that I both followed his argument and was interested in it.

Mr. Foot: We shall have to be very discriminating about the hon. Gentleman's nods in future. We shall have to interpret them as we have to interpret his speeches.
It is perfectly valid to point out that the Government should have dealt with the matter in an entirely different way. I hate to say it, but there was a good deal in what the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet said. I do not believe that the Government will be able to raise huge sums of money by taxing gambling. There is not a tremendous amount to be got from it. It is a very attractive proposition, of course, to impose taxes which do not hurt, which deviate from the old principle that to tax and to please is not given to men or to Governments. I do not think that it will work. In any case, the Government have wasted a good deal of their time and of the time of the Committee by introducing their proposal in this way.
In the operation of the Clause, even assuming that there are enough people available to operate it, there will be endless disputes about what is in and what is out. As I listened to the earlier debates, I was reminded of the famous occasion when Mr. W. C. Fields, in a town in the wild West, was sitting down with three or four companions whom he had just picked up to play a game of cards. They said to him, "Is this a game of chance?", to which he replied, "Not the way I play it". I suggest that the Government will have much the same great difficulties in operating this ridiculous Clause.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: I intervene briefly because, in company with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), I put my name to the Amendment in page 3, line 32, at the end to add a new subsection (11) dealing with Association Football. The Amendment was ruled out of order because it could not come within the terms of the Clause. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South has said. Everyone knows his great interest in Association Football his great love of the game, and the fact that, among football supporters, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins), he is one of our national figures in this national sport.
The Economic Secretary, the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who have been here during the debate, know our feelings about

football being left out of the inquiry. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South said that the Football League had asked for an inquiry. I hope very much that the Economic Secretary will press upon the Chancellor the need for the Football League to be included within the terms of the inquiry.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) emphasised that what we want is information, particularly information about the relationship between the money which is got from football pools and the plight of many third and fourth division football clubs today. I mention just a few names from North of the Border—East Stirling, Queen of the South, Raith Rovers, Stirling Albion, Third Lanark. All these clubs are in financial difficulty.
Is it not a matter of justice that, some-how, through redistributive taxation, they should be helped if there is to be an inquiry into the whole system of gaming? They provide the very foundation without which there could not be any football pools at all.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. du Cann: Before I come to the subject matter of the Clause as a whole and attempt to answer the points which have been made, I shall deal with one specific question which was asked. The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) asked—I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber for about five minutes at the time when he did so—whether the Football League had asked the Treasury about money made out of betting on football. I understand that the answer is "No", but I shall say a little more on the subject of football in a few minutes.

Mr. Wilkins: My advice is that a draft document was submitted to the Treasury, on the advice, so I believe—I am not sure—of the Chancellor's predecessor.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I have a copy of the document sent to the Treasury, asking for an investigation of the kind we have requested. Moreover, the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) was good enough to receive a deputation of representatives of the League. He considered their representations and passed them on to the noble Lord in another place who is in charge


of sport, and the matter is now being considered. My hon. Friend is quite right. These representations have been made.

Mr. du Cann: I have no wish to quarrel with hon. Members on this point. If I am in some way misled, that is a great pity. I shall certainly pay attention to what has been said and look at the matter again. Perhaps we are attempting to deal with two different matters. I was attempting to answer a local inquiry which the hon. Gentleman made. I am aware that a good deal of water has passed under the bridge, and I was aware of the deputation. I was referring to the specific question which I thought I was asked, but I shall say a little more about it later.
I shall now say something about the desirability of a tax in principle. It is plain that gambling in general, including both betting and gaming, has long been recognised as, in principle, a suitable subject for taxation. This was acknowledged by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East in his speech. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Report of the Royal Commission which, in 1949–51, considered the law and practice relating to gambling. Its comments are worth noting:
… we see no reason, … on social grounds, why the State should not secure revenue from expenditure on gambling. Indeed, we think it in principle reasonable that all commercial forms of gambling
I underline the word "commercial"—
should make a contribution … It is not, however, within our province to express any opinion whether it is desirable on fiscal grounds.
This points to the difficult question about which there has been so much comment already in the debate. That view suggested by the Royal Commission is, in fact, very widely held, and I think that it would be fair to say that it is acknowledged even by the industry itself. It has gained very much in strength due to the growth of, and the publicity given to, the industry as a whole and to betting in shops and gaming in clubs in particular. In passing, I think it fair to say that some of the publicity has been slightly exaggerated, but that there is public anxiety on this subject there is no doubt whatever. That there is a wish among

members of the public that, if practicable, we should find a method of taxing gambling is, I think, incontrovertible.

Mr. Houghton: The hon. Gentleman will know that a good deal of public anxiety on this matter is on moral and social grounds, not by any means only on fiscal grounds.

Mr. du Cann: That is a perfectly proper comment, and I entirely agree. The Government recognise the strength of this feeling, which has a moral and social aspect as well as a fiscal.
I remind the Committee of what my right hon. Friend said in his Budget speech:
There is a growing feeling, which I share, that gambling is a form of expenditure which should contribute towards the rising cost of social and other Government expenditure.
I go out of my way to make that quotation in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro) who said that perhaps there was some doubt about my right hon. Friends' sincerity in this matter [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the hon. Gentleman?"] My hon. Friend was good enough to explain to me that he could not be here later this evening.
We most certainly recognise the difficulties. My right hon. Friend referred to them in his Budget speech when he said, again in c. 465:
… there are great practical difficulties involved in establishing a form of taxation in the field of gambling which can be properly enforced."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1963; Vol. 675, c. 465.]
None the less, a preliminary review which had been continuing over a period of time indicated certain possibilities, although attended with serious risks. Under the authority of my right hon. Friend, a full scale examination was decided on. This was announced by a Whitten Answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT for 11th December, 1962, to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden).
Since we are dealing with information, it is appropriate that I should put the Committee in a position to know precisely what has happened. We have accepted the view of the Royal Commission. It was thought appropriate to have a review. It was announced in the House that a review would take place, and it has taken place. A series


of talks were held with a number of national bodies, some of which have been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). They were fully representative of the nationally organised betting interests.
This particularly hears on a point raised by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East—I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon; I should have referred to Walthamstow, Went. I ought to know. East is east and west is west, and that is very much the case in Walthamstow. I remember the hon. Gentleman so well from the old days.
The hon. Gentleman wondered whether the Customs authorities were in a position to get all the information on this matter that they should have. I think that certain doubts—very polite and, in a sense, flattering doubts—were cast on their abilities by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet because he said that Customs officials are probably the sort of people who would be unlikely to be familiar with the detail of this matter. But they have made inquiries, so far as they were able to do—and fairly exhaustive inquiries they were—in the Republic of Ireland, Germany, Italy and Austria. The point that I am trying to make is this. We decided on the review, and it has taken place. It has already been fairly exhaustive both in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. We have already collated a very great deal of information, particularly on betting, but we think that it is in respect of gaming that it is appropriate to take these further powers.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), supported by the hon. Members for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) and Bristol, South, made the point that our inquiries should be as wide as possible. I hope that we shall have a full discussion on the points which I know the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South has so much in mind and so much at heart. I hope that that answers the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol, South. But, whether we have that discussion or not, I assure hon. Members that we shall certainly pay very strict attention to what they had in mind. I realise that the remarks of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South were necessarily shortened, but that will not

prevent us from paying attention to his views. I appreciate that the point which he raised has the support of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).
We already had a great deal of information, but it became apparent as the review proceeded—and it was perhaps obvious from the beginning—that gaming as a medium for raising revenue was certainly a vastly different proposition from betting. It is far more complicated and more difficult to define and is a rapidly developing and inconstant field. The Committee was good enough to recognise that in our earlier discussions.
We were therefore faced with this situation. Before one even reaches the stage of being able to make a proper review of gaming as a medium for taxation, one must, I hope the Committee will think rightly, take the preliminary step of requiring it to reveal itself. I listened to speeches on the Budget by hon. Members who said, "Let us tax gaming". I have particularly in mind my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster. That is a very easy thing to say. but an essential pre-requisite of action is to establish beyond doubt with what and with whom we are dealing.
I am very grateful for what the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West said on this point, with all his experience—experience, I need hardly add, of a game-keeping kind. He said how appalling and dreadful it would be if the loyal, devoted and conscientious officers of the Department of Customs and Excise, a very ancient and honourable Department in which so many important historical figures have served, were given a responsibility which they were unable to fulfil. That is entirely true. That would be thoroughly unfair. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) and my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet had this point in mind. We were asked, by inference largely, whether we were determined enough. Most assuredly we are. It is because we are determined to have a sensible, sound and fair scheme that we are so anxious to get the information which we must have on which to base a comprehensive system of taxation.

Mr. Manuel: When the Economic Secretary says that he wants a comprehensive system and that he will take


advice from all sorts of bodies, may I ask whether gambling on the Stock Exchange will come into it?

Mr. du Cann: Speculation in securities of any kind, whether Stock Exchange securities, or commodities, or buying land, do not come into this review. This is an entirely separate subject. There are arguments for and against speculation in making a comprehensive and effective market. We had substantial discussion on this point when dealing with the speculative gains tax some time ago. I suggest that a discussion on those lines is not appropriate to the gaming which we are discussing this evening.
I agree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West that it is very important that there should be proper publicity in this matter. It is more than likely that serious operators in this field—I
think of the names which immediately spring to mind—will be conscious of everything said in our debates and of every action which we have taken. I agree, however, that the need for publicity goes further than that. It would have been extraordinarily difficult if the Committee had not been good enough to allow us to take out of the inquiry some of the milder forms of gambling to get the information over to those people. We are all agreed on that. On the other hand, I am confident that the expertise of the Customs and Excise can be relied on to give publicity in the various ways open to them in this matter and to get it home to those in the fixed premises from which they operate. They have the experience and knowledge, particularly local knowledge, of 10,000 local offices on which to rely. That is a most important point.
The more one looks at the subject of gaming, the more the difficulties become apparent. I do not want to go into detail on the various types of gambling. Nor would it be appropriate at this stage to discuss precisely the criteria for taxation or to discuss the types of tax which we might have. The point on which we are endeavouring to reach agreement is that the object of the Clause is to provide the legal cover under which the Customs and Excise can compile the gaming register proposed by my right hon. Friend in his Budget speech.
As far as I can see, the only limitation on the effectiveness of that might be if the Customs authorities are not sufficiently well equipped with staff. I assure the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West that we anticipate no difficulty on that score. Should there be difficulties, they will be attended to. I say again that we are determined in this matter and that we must have the information.
7.30 p.m.
The compilation of this register, as I hope I may have indicated in what I have already said, is in effect only one feature of the continuing review of the whole field of gambling as the subject for taxation. What action may follow from the review it is not possible at this stage to say. What I am arguing is that it is essential to have the facts.
I understand that the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West made it plain that the Opposition will want to examine in detail any proposals that might or might not flow from this investigation. I quite understand that, and I think that virtually the hon. Member for Gloucester made the same point earlier.
In discussing the Amendments which the Committee have already been good enough to accept, I have attempted to describe some of the types of gaming which it is proposed to exclude from the immediate requirements of registration. I also described the types of gaming that we are anxious to include in the inquiry, and I assume that the Committee will not wish me to go over that ground again. I should say, however, that the revenue effect of the Clause is nil.
I hope the Committee will feel that the undertakings given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary during the debates on last year's Finance Bill when he said that we should certainly wish to consider a review of gambling is being honourably fulfilled. It is our intention to fulfil them. We are giving serious consideration to the possibility of a tax on gambling in general and we feel, and I hope that the Committee may feel, that it is essential for us to be better informed in this highly-complex field of gaming especially.
We have a great deal of information, and we want to add to it. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Waltham-stow, West that it would be a tragedy


if any taxation enterprise in this field went off, so to speak, at half cock and was unsuccessful. No one would gain and the country certainly would be extremely disappointed.
I want to refer to a point made by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. He adduced a most interesting argument to the effect that some people are supporting the Clause because they hope that it will show a tax of gambling to be impossible. Other people, he suggested, are supporting it because it is perhaps the first step towards the tax. Whichever of those two views is true, certainly I would think that both sections of opinion in so far as they exist—and I believe the latter to be infinitely more important and numerous than the former—have probably agreed that in order to reach their goal it must be right to have the facts. This Clause will give us the power to obtain the information that we need, and I confidently invite the Committee to approve it.

Mr. Wilkins: Before we leave this Clause, I ought to say that I appreciate the receptive and sympathetic way in which our suggestions or proposals have been received by the Economic Secretary and the Treasury Bench. May I ask him, when he has eventually tracked down this eight-page memorandum which we know has been submitted at some time or another, to consider either meeting us to consider whether we write into the Report stage of the Bill an Amendment, or consider amending the Clause on Report stage, so that it would embrace the inquiry into pools betting and associated matters?

Mr. du Cann: I think the position is that we probably already have all the information we require in relation to the matters which the hon. Gentleman has in mind. This Clause is concerned with further information on the subject of gaming. I must try again to clear up the misunderstanding that we have had. As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman asked the specific question, at a moment when I was not in the Chamber, whether or not we at the Treasury had been asked a particular question. So far as I could recall, the answer was "No" and I was so advised. I am aware of the memorandum. I know that it was submitted to the Treasury, and I shall certainly have

a fresh look at this as soon as opportunity offers. I am very ready to undertake that.
I would not undertake to amend this Clause which is specifically designed to obtain information on gaming and for that purpose alone. If we require information on the points that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have in mind, we shall certainly get it in other ways. I shall see that that point is checked and given attention.

Mr. Diamond: I feel, as the Economic Secretary said, that we have had a very full, useful and valuable debate, and I think that everyone in the Committee feels that it was appropriate that a debate should take place on this Clause and that it should be wholly examined.
I must say that the hon. Gentleman has been as courteous as ever. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) was quite wrong in saying that the Economic Secretary exceeded himself in courtesy. The Economic Secretary is always courteous when he is making a botch of things. He is always perfectly courteous, and it is wrong to single out this one occasion.
The hon. Gentleman has given us a great deal of very valuable information. I am glad that he made particularly clear this point, in view of everything that has been said, that, although this Clause enables the Government to get information about gaming, what is in the Government's mind is precisely what the Financial Secretary said was in the Government's mind on Second Reading:
The purpose is to help with the review that is being made of the possibility of introducing this over a wide field of betting and gaming."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1963; Vol. 677, c, 38.]
As the Economic Secretary has made absolutely clear, betting information is available or means of obtaining it are there. What is not available is information and means of obtaining it concerning gaming, and that is the purpose of this Clause. It is right that my hon. Friend's anxiety should be removed immediately, that it is not within contemplation by the Government that gaming and betting are both subjects for consideration so far as taxation is concerned.
The Economic Secretary looks rather surprised. I thought that I was underlining what he had said, namely, that


on both these fields information is being gathered, on betting it is being gathered without the assistance of this Clause, and on gaming the assistance of this Clause is necessary for it to be adequately covered and when the whole of that information is available everyone will look at it, the whole of it and not only the part that relates to gaming.
This has been a most interesting debate and to hon. Members on this side of the Committee the interest has been not only to take part in it, but to listen to the answers given by the Economic Secretary. I hope that he was not at all put off by the fact that throughout his speech he had the support of two back benchers, one of them his P.P.S. and the other an hon. Gentleman who was fast asleep.
We thought this an important matter and that the Government ought to be assisted by our deliberations and the contribution which we had to make to the debate. We have done this and we think that the Government ought now to have the Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(FURTHER REDUCTIONS OF CUSTOMS DUTIES ON E.F.T.A. GOODS.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: There are one or two questions that I want to ask the Government about this Clause. It relates to the lowering of import duties on a number of things coming from E.F.T.A. countries, particularly, as the White Paper tells us, on beer and matches, which will cost about £125,000 a year by way of reduced tax.
I have been looking at the Treaty of Stockholm and so, I am sure, have the Treasury Bench. Under which Article is this happening? There was a reference in the Chancellor's Budget speech to eliminating the protective element in revenue duties, and when I looked through the Treaty I found provisions for progressively eliminating the effective protective elements in the duty, and a reference to the date
on or before 1st January, 1965.

This fitted in so remarkably with what the Chancellor said that—I refer to the subject of the previous debate—I thought that I bad spotted a winner. But that was not so, because two pages later I came to an Article entitled "Import duties" I suppose that these are also revenue duties, but import duties they most certainly are. I found that Article 3(2, a) provided a nice little timetable for not applying import duties at levels exceeding certain percentages and providing, in effect, for a 10 per cent. reduction over a number of years, including this year.
These are hardy annuals. We had one last year when, for some reasons, we reduced the tax on gas lighters, but they have been left untouched this year. What are these minor differences when we consider a wide question of principle such as this? Which is the part of the Treaty under which the Government are operating? As these are import duties, why could we not be told that this was the position? I cannot believe that the Chancellor got the Treaty wrong. It is I who must have done that, but I should very much like to know what the position is.
I want, next, to refer to the question of imported beer. The Financial Secretary will remember the days when he was Economic Secretary and when we had a little machinery treaty about E.F.T.A. duties which has become the European Free Trade Act. It is mentioned in the Bill. I then raised, as one always does about beer, a high question of principle. I should like to know what will happen in respect of imported beer, because according to the Treaty which we are carrying out there must be no discrimination in these matters and we must not
frustrate the benefits expected from the removal or absence of duties
—that is precisely this case—by restrictive business practices, one of which is the agreement between enterprises which has as its
object or result the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the Area of the Association.
When this machinery Bill, as it then was, passed through the House, I pointed out to the present Financial Secretary that this kind of restrictive practice exactly applied to this beer and that the object of these concessions was partly eliminated by


the practice of having tied houses, because there was restrictive competition.
I pointed out that the practice of having tied houses was just this sort of agreement between enterprises which resulted in the distortion of competition, because the tied house, having made an agreement with the brewer—there are other forms of it, but that is the simplest to take—the result was that the brewer's lager was given preference over the imported lager beer. About £2 million worth of imported lager comes from Denmark alone and rather more, undoubtedly, from E.F.T.A. as a whole. It is a substantial item. We have here these illusory concessions in the way of gradual reduction of duties but we submit it to these discriminatory practices.
The hon. Member then laughed at it rather lightly. The following comments were addressed to me on 15th February, 1960:
I can only tell him with great respect that there is nothing in Article 15"—
that is the Article to which I have been referring—
which requires the House to introduce any legislation in order that the United Kingdom Government should fulfil her obligations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1960; Vol. 617, c. 1021.]
I ventured to point out to him that the effect of there being no penalty did not usually relieve a respectable sovereign State from carrying out what it had undertaken to do.
7.45 p.m.
Has there been any progress since then? If we agree to the removal of part of these discriminatory duties in favour of E.F.T.A., shall we then find that the tied house system still exists in this country and that preference is still given to the beer of one British brewer or another aga the imported beer in favour of which this concession is supposed to be made? This is a question of principle. Questions of beer so often are. For instance, there is a Clause which we shall reach later, called "Brewers not for sale", which clearly raises the most important issues.
I would say, not more seriously but equally seriously, that both sides of the Committee are glad to see the active functioning of E.F.T.A. year by year. Even if the Government as usual slip up a bit in the performance of their

obligations, they appear to be on the right path in this matter.
May I make a point which will probably arise in answer to the first question: are corresponding concessions of this sort being made by other E.F.T.A. countries at the same rate and what is the Treaty position in respect of this type of duty? There was reference, I think in the Chancellor's speech—I may have got the wrong place for it—to some hastening of the removal of duties in connection with E.F.T.A. May we be told shortly—and I mean shortly—what sort of thing that is? At what rate is it proceeding? I hope that I am not belying myself speaking for too long in these fascinating questions, and I hope that I shall be given an answer.

Mr. Barber: I assure the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) that our partners in E.F.T.A. are reciprocating by taking similar action in favour of our exports to them. I cannot—and he would not expect me to—give specific details, but this is the general position. I am grateful, as I am sure are most hon. Members who take an interest in these matters, for his observations generally about E.F.T.A. and the progress which we have been making, particularly recently.
In the short time which we should like to devote to this Clause, I hope that I may also refer to the First Schedule, because the two are linked. The Clause and the Schedule together make a further reduction in the rates of customs duties on certain, and only certain classes of goods if they are E.F.T.A. goods—that is to say, goods originating in and consigned from a place in the area of the European Free Trade Association. The rates of Customs duty on similar goods imported from other sources are not affected in any way by the Clause.
The E.F.T.A. Convention provides, among other things, for the gradual reduction and eventual elimination of import duties on most kinds of industrial products—that is to say, if they are E.F.T.A. goods, as defined. The Convention, as the hon. and learned Member pointed out, draws a distinction between import duties; between what are sometimes called protective duties, on the one hand, and revenue duties on the other. In general, protective duties have to be


progressively reduced and eventually elminated vis-à-vis other E.F.T.A countries. Revenue duties, on the other hand, are charged primarily, as one would expect, for the purpose of raising revenue, but they may nevertheless, as have some of our revenue duties, have a built-in protective element.
There is an obligation under E.F.T.A. to reduce and again ultimately to eliminate any such protective element in the revenue duties on industrial E.F.T.A. goods. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me under what Article we carried out this procedure of eliminating the protective element in the revenue duties. The answer is under Article 6.
At the outset, we were given the option under this Article of gradually reducing the protective elements in successive reductions, correspondiing to those which were prescribed for the reduction of protective duties, or—as I am sure the hon. and learned Member will remember, because we have discussed this on a previous occasion—eliminating protective elements on or before a fixed date, which was 1st January, 1965. Again, I will not go into details unless the hon. and learned Member wishes me to do so, but we decided to go for the second option, that is to say, to incur the obligation to eliminate protective elements on or before 1st January, 1965.
It was considered desirable that we should carry out the elimination of the protective elements in these revenue duties in stages. Apart from anything else, we thought that this would be convenient for British industry. The first step was taken in the 1962 Budget. The reductions which were then made and which we considered in the Finance Bill of last year affected the same goods as the reductions which are now proposed and which are set out in the First Schedule.
The hon. and learned Member referred to beer other than black beer—he will have noticed that point. Black beer is a particularly strong beer, as I understand it, which is frequently used for medicinal purposes. The hon. and learned Gentleman might like to consult his doctor about it. The present duty reduction brings the rate of duty charged on E.F.T.A. beer to the same level as the duty charged on beer entitled to Com-

monwealth preference, which is £1 per 36 gallons below the rate charged on non-E.F.T.A. foreign beer.
As the hon. and learned Member pointed out, the type of beer which is particularly affected by the duty reduction is lager beer. This accounts for about 3 per cent. of the total United Kingdom beer consumption. Danish lager, which will certainly benefit from the reduction, represents about one fifth of this specialised market. British lager is unlikely to be seriously affected because the reduction in the duty amounts to rather less than ½d. a pint and it is obviously not easy for a reduction of that order to be passed on.
To my surprise, the hon. and learned Member then raised the subject of tied houses and our obligations under the E.F.T.A. Agreement and particularly the Stockholm Convention and he referred to Article 15 on restrictive business practices, which I read very carefully when we discussed this previously. I had forgotten all about it and I have not had time to read it fully since, but I am convinced—and I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be satisfied—that the answer which I gave on the previous occasion was correct.
I am sure that if I had been in error in anything I said—which, broadly speaking, was that although we had an obligation to do certain things and consult about them, it went not very much further than that—on a matter as important as this, as both the hon. and learned Gentleman and I recognise, the error would have been brought to my attention.
Perhaps I should say that the cost of the reductions is only about £125,000 so that this is—I was about to say "small beer"—but it is not a matter of great significance. It is sensible to take this action in this Budget and, after all, we are acting in accordance with our treaty obligations.

Mr. Mitchison: This is also an international match as well as being small beer. I cannot accept as satisfactory what the hon. Gentleman has just said. His answer last time about tied houses was that while we might be breaking the treaty, nobody had yet taken any steps to enforce it. We have a remarkably patient collection of partners in E.F.T.A. if they can be treated like that. His


answer was so obviously unsatisfactory that it merits nothing more than the rapid passing of the Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

First Schedule agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(REPEAL OF TELEVISION DUTY.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Mitchison: Could we have a few words about Clause 5, which is a matter of some considerable public importance?

Mr. Barber: Yes. As the hon. and learned Member says, this is a matter of considerable public importance. It is probably the shortest Clause in the Finance Bill and it abolishes the duty of £1 per television broadcast receiving licence, which was imposed in 1957, as from 1st October, this year. The duty is only £1 out of a total of £4. The purpose of the abolition—I believe that I touched upon this when I moved the Second Reading—is to enable the B.B.C. to be given an increase in its income without an additional charge on the viewer at this stage. Accordingly, there will be a simultaneous increase of £1 per annum, from £3 to £4, in the basic licence fee.
The increase in the B.B.C.'s income is necessary because of the present and prospective rise in B.B.C. expenditure, mainly on the extension of services and new developments approved by the Government following the Pilkington Report, particularly the B.B.C. second television service which is due to start in the London area early next year. This proposal has been widely welcomed not only on both sides of the Committee, but in the country.

Mr. Mitchison: Is this proposal in accordance with the recommendations of the Pilkington Committee?

Mr. Barber: Of that I cannot be sure, but I can tell the hon. and learned Member that it certainly does not run counter to any of the proposals of the Pilkington Committee which were concerned with the financing of the B.B.C. Offhand, I cannot remember whether the Committee

made any specific recommendation for the abolition of the television duty, but I rather think that it did not.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(BREWERS NOT FOR SALE.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: We now pass, as it were funereally, from one beer to another. The Government will have noticed that there is some ambiguity about the heading of the Clause, no doubt connected with the sort of ambiguity which we may expect from them in their election programme. It appears to relate to people who brew something, that something not being for sale, and is unconnected with any proposal for buying or selling the brewers themselves.
It is remarkable. In many ways it is very picturesque within the general object of the Clause, and certainly earns a very warm sentimental sympathy, perhaps the warmer because the concession appears to cost remarkably little. There appear to be some people in the country who, notwithstanding the progress of British and E.F.T.A. brewers, still brew their own beer. Out of what, and in what circumstances. I do not know.
Not only do they brew their own beer, but they brew it for other people, and this is what fascinates me. Subsection (1) refers to a person
who brews only for his own domestic use or for consumption by farm labourers employed by him in the actual course of their labour or employment..
What does that curious phrase mean? Does it mean that a farm labourer is employed partly for agricultural purposes, and partly for the express purpose of drinking beer? That is what it seems to say.
While I appreciate the great wisdom of trying it out on the dog, it is not a proposition which should appeal to us in these enlightened times, and the Tory Party, now hunting vaguely for progress and enlightenment, should not encourage the idea that a man is, in fact, in the course of his employment when he is drinking beer.
The subsection then refers to beer being brewed by a person who is
not also a dealer in or retailer of beer".


This, too, is a little obscure, because it is very hard to see how, if he brews only for his own domestic use or for consumption by farm labourers employed by him, he could possibly be a dealer in, or retailer of, beer, but no doubt the Government are making certain that everybody keeps his head in these circumstances and that no beer goes astray. Then, having got off the licence, he gets off the Excise duty and on this, I think, must rest the meat of the matter. I think that subsection (2) is a little stingy. It says:
An excise licence … may be granted authorising the person to whom it is granted to brew beer not for sale and only for his own domestic use or for consumption by any persons employed by him in the actual course of their employment;"—
and again they must not stop work, but while actually working they must drink beer; a mysterious passage this!—
and on every such licence there shall be charged a duty of four shillings.
This is a great and generous gesture, but I feel that a Tory Government need not have charged the farmers 4s. on the Excise licence. They might have gone the whole hog, or reduced it to Is. or a nominal sum like that.
Then we have the whole Schedule and, following that, what the Chancellor of the Exchequer described as a happy result. It is most unusual to have a happy result of any sort in a Finance Bill. We usually have only degrees of inspissated gloom, and one welcomes this change. This is the first example that we have had since the Tory Government came to power that they are human. I am reluctant to oppose this interesting Clause, but I should like to know what it means, especially that mysterious phrase
in the actual course of their labour or employment
in one subsection, and
in the actual course of their employment
in the other. I hope that we shall be told the difference in this context between labour, on the one hand, and employment, on the other.

Mr. Cyril Bence: For slightly different reasons I, too, have read this extraordinary Clause with some interest. In the rural areas

there are many inns and even hotels with large agricultural holdings. I know the owner of an hotel who also owns 180 acres and employs more farm labourers than he does hotel servants. Will the owner of such a farmhouse which is attached to an hotel be barred from brewing beer for his farm labourers?
I hope that the Economic Secretary is taking note of the questions that I am asking. Subsection (1) of the Clause says that if a man is a dealer or retailer of beer he is barred from brewing beer for domestic use or for consumption by his employees if they are agricultural workers. As I said, I know the owner of an hotel who also owns 180 acres of farmland, and who enploys more farm labourers than domestic servants. I take it that this hotelier-cum-farmer will be barred from brewing beer free of duty for his farm labourers because he is also a retailer. Can he separate his function as a retailer of beer from his function as a farmer? Or must he, because of this Clause, be accepted as a retailer of beer and be excluded from the benefits provided herein? I ask this because I am confused about the present position, and this problem is likely to arise in many instances in rural areas.

Dr. Horace King: Hon. Members have often moved Amendments and been told by those who speak for Parliamentary draftsmen that the Amendment does not mean what the mover thinks it means, and I think that it would be unfair to the Committee if we did not criticise the Parliamentary draftsmen for the drafting of this Clause.
I am sure that every hon. Member has noticed the heading of the Clause, "Brewers not for sale". Being a simple, non-legal man, it seems to me that the only time when a farmer will get the benefit of this Clause is when the farm worker consumes the beer during the course of his employment. In other words, he will have to go farming with a plough in one hand and a bottle in the other. I am certain that this is not the intention of the Government, and I hope that they will say that they are prepared to reconsider the drafting of the Clause.

Mr. du Cann: I am glad of the opportunity to reply to this most amusing


debate, and I hope that I shall be able to satisfy those hon. Members who have spoken. At any rate, I shall do my best.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) asked why we used this curious, and, I agree, somewhat misleading title of "Brewers not for sale". The reason is that since 1760 this is the description which has been applied to this type of activity and to those who perform it, and I am advised that there would be grave repercussions if we were to change a situation which has existed since then and use language which did not tie up with the language that had been used orginally to start the whole business off.

Mr. MacDermot: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that brewers are the same thing today as they were in 1760?

Mr. du Cann: My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary says that he did not know any then, and neither did I. Whether they are the same sort of thing, I would not know. What I am quite clear about is that the beer brewed in England today is regarded by some who are older than I as not necessarily as good as the beer that was brewed when they were young men. The question is open to doubt and to argument.
I must point out what the reason is for the change in the law. The present provisions serve no useful purpose, and the cost of collecting the revenue probably exceeds the amount collected. The decision to abolish the charge of Income Tax on owner-occupied houses, which we shall discuss on another occasion, removes the basis, in terms of the annual value of premises, by which concessions in respect of the payment of beer duty and brewers' licence duty are allowed to private brewers, and, the Committee may think, affords a convenient opportunity for abolishing the duty charge and the licensing system.
The general purpose of the Clause is to make it possible for a private person to brew beer for his own domestic consumption without incurring any liability to beer duty or to brewers' licence duty. As a result, a private person will have the same freedom to brew beer for himself as he would have, and has at the moment, to make his own wine—dandelion wine, and all the rest. The basic

exemption is for the person who brews beer for his own domestic use—for consumption by himself, his wife and his friends.
The Clause maintains the present privilege—and here I answer specifically the question asked by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering—enjoyed by some farm workers, to obtain, from their farmer-employers, supplies of free beer for consumption in the actual course of their employment. I have been asked what that means. A vision has been conjured up of a farm employee milking a cow with one hand, holding the pail between his knees and holding a bottle of beer in the other. It is not quite like that.
An example is harvest ale. The worker in the fields is provided with this free of charge by the farmer. This is a very old and a very happy tradition. Certainly, it is a West Country tradition, as many hon. Members other than myself will know. Modern circumstances have probably considerably reduced the extent of the privilege—I think that that is a pity—but in so far as the practice is still carried on I believe that it should be allowed to continue, and I hope that the Committee will agree.
I now turn to another point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering and also by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence). It is necessary to exclude from the exemption dealers in, and retailers of, beer because of the obvious risk to the beer duty which could arise if these dealers, with their facilities for selling beer, were able to brew their own without payment of duty. In a sense that question was completely answered by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East who quoted a case of a farmer he knows in Dunbartonshire—

Mr. Bence: Not in Dunbartonshire.

Mr. du Cann: I am sorry; I thought that the hon. Member said that it was in his constituency. At any rate, the case concerns a farmer who is also a publican. It would be unsatisfactory, in the case of a person who is a farmer and a publican, and who has been used to providing his workpeople and friends with free beer when they have been working in his fields in the past, to allow him to provide them with beer that he had brewed himself.


It is clear—I do not suggest that it would apply in the case mentioned by the hon. Member—that there could be opportunities for abuse if there were not a divorce between the one profession and the other. We think it appropriate to have that divorce.
This is also necessary to prevent the new exemption from providing a loophole by means of which employers of labour, such as factory owners, could brew beer free of beer duty without holding a licence, and were able to issue that beer free of charge to their workers. That is different from the limited question of providing a little beer for a few farmworkers at the height of the harvest season. To suggest that a factory owner should provide 1,000, or 2,000, or several thousand of his factory workers with duty-free beer is another matter. The Clause therefore introduces a special form of brewers' licence, to be known as a "limited licence", to cover such cases. It is thought that in the face of such a provision, with the obligation to pay beer duty on beer produced by them, employers will not take up brewing for their workers.
8.15 p.m.
The Committee may be interested to know that in 1961–62 private brewers took out a total of 909 licences. The majority were free licences, but others were taken up at varying rates, depending upon the valuation of their premises. These licences produce a total amount of revenue of £515 only. That illustrates my point that the game is simply not worth the candle.
I thought that I was going to be asked—and I was surprised that I was not—what view the Government took of the substantial publicity which this proposed change would have upon private brewing. Many articles in the newspapers have told us how to brew our own beer, but I thought it worth soliciting the opinion of professional brewers in this matter. I cannot guarantee that it is the official view, but I am advised that brewers are of the opinion that persons drinking home-brewed beer will appreciate more fully the products of the professional brewmasters. Indeed, I have heard it said that those doing so will be only too glad to go to the nearest emporium in order to have a glass of proper beer to take the taste away.
Be that as it may, I hope that the Committee will regard this as a useful, sensible and desirable reform.

Mr. Mitchison: I thank the hon. Member for his lucid dissertation on the subject. He tells us that the trouble started in 1760. Perhaps it is time to get it put right. It bears signs of its date. Harvest beer and the farmworker probably only come together when the agricultural tractor is away—probably on a sea voyage. It is in those circumstances that one reverts to the more primitive forms of agriculture.
But I feel that it is a little rough that if a man is engaged in lorry driving it will be extremely doubtful whether he can have the free beer, because he may not be a farm labourer within the meaning of the phrase. Again, the man who goes round with the threshing machine—which is a very dry and thirsty job—is usually a contractor, and not employed by the farmer. He will not receive any free beer, either. The Tory Party, always abreast of the times, should bring themselves a century or two further forward from 1761 and consider whether the concession made in the Clause might not be broadened to accord more with modern conditions, even when the agricultural tractor may be at sea.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 2.—(BREWERS' LICENCES: CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF ACT OF 1952.)

Mr. du Cann: I beg to move, in page 68, line 27, after "beer", to insert:
or of a corresponding licence granted in Northern Ireland".
The point about this Amendment is simple, although technical. The object is to bring Northern Ireland into line with the United Kingdom as a result of measures which they, in their own Parliament, are now proposing to take. The Minister of Finance for Northern Ireland has decided to abolish private beer brewers' licences in his forthcoming Budget and to introduce limited licences for the brewing of beer for domestic use or for consumption by any person employed in the actual course of their employment, exactly as is the case in Clause 6.
However, although the issue of limited licences is within the powers of the Northern Ireland Parliament, the duty chargeable on the beer brewed under cover of them is a "reserved" duty under Section 21 f the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. Accordingly, it is necessary to provide in the Finance Bill that the duty on beer, brewed under cover of limited licences issued in Northern Ireland will, in a similar manner to the beer brewed under limited licences in Great Britain, be payable in accordance with Section 134 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, as amended, rather than at the higher rate laid down in Section 133.
I wanted to say that for the sake of the record. It is entirely straightforward. The object of the exercise is to bring Northern Ireland into line with the United Kingdom, as I am sure would be the wish in Northern Ireland, following the decision to make the same changes as we, in our wisdom, are making in the United Kingdom.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, That this Schedule, as amended, be the Second Schedule to the Bill.

Mr. Mitchison: I have one question. I wonder whether the Government can explain why, in paragraph 2(4), it has become necessary in this connection to insert the words "liquidator or", and what those words mean?

Mr. du Cann: That is a highly technical question to which, before I sit down, I hope to be in a position to provide an answer for the hon. and learned Gentleman. In the meantime, perhaps I could deal with the Schedule generally.
As the Committee will be aware, the substantive change in this matter is in Clause 6. The detail is in the Schedule. It is really a simple matter of putting the paraphernalia of detail into the Schedule and keep the Clause as simple and straightforward as possible, although I agree that at first blush it appears extraordinarily complicated. There is nothing in the Schedule which is not dealt with in the Clause.
I hope that the hon. and learned Member will permit me to give him the answer to his question later, as it is, as

he will appreciate, a matter of some difficulty.

Mr. Mitchison: I think that the hon. Gentleman has completely "liquidated" the question.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 7,—(TOBACCO DEALERS.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Redhead: Clause 7 proposes the abolition of the tobacco dealer's licence. In saying "Goodbye" to this licence, which has a long and chequered history, I feel that I am bidding farewell to an old friend. For at one time it was my responsibility—it was not very high-powered stuff, and it was in my junior days—to have something to do with the administration of this duty.
This never was a revenue duty and was never applied for the purpose of revenue. That could hardly be so. It is amusing to recall that originally the duty amounted to half-a-guinea a year. Someone in the Treasury, in a burst of generosity, and in response to pressure, said, "Very well, we will halve the duty." But it was not noticed that this produced the awkward figure of 5s. 3d. per annum, and only a few years ago the then Chancellor put the matter right by making the duty £1 for a period of four years.
Its original purpose was to register the retail outlets for tobacco, to identify the registered outlets of retail sales in order to protect the revenue on tobacco. That has always been a very big revenue-raiser, rising to a figure of about £870 million per annum. As such this licence has clearly outlived its purpose, and today no one would suggest that there is any serious need to maintain the dealer's licence for the purpose of providing adequate protection for the revenue on tobacco. The manufacturers' sources are well covered, and I do not think that the Treasury has any apprehension on that score. Furthermore, conditions and regulations applicable to the tobacco dealer's licence have been unnecessarily cumbersome in administration and vexatious in practice, leading to a number of anomalies. Although licences were freely issued to any applicant, they were limited to fixed premises.
In these days, with the development of mobile shops which provide a valuable service in many rural areas, it proved exceedingly vexatious for people conducting such shops to be unable to sell tobacco and cigarettes from these mobile vehicles because they were not fixed premises.
Hon. Members on this side of the Committee raised the problem on several occasions during Committee stage discussions on Finance Bills and tried to devise ways and means to overcome this ridiculous position. On some occasions, for example, it was possible to issue a tobacco dealer's licence because stakes were put in the ground and the wheels of a vehicle attached to the stakes, when the vehicle was termed as fixed premises. That sort of device seemed unnecessarily cumbersome. Only last year the Financial Secretary gave an undertaking to consider the matter again, after pressure had been applied, to see whether some means could be found to overcome this anomaly. I have come to the conclusion that the hon. Gentleman found it impossible to invent any device while maintaining the licence, and so the solution has been to abolish it outright.
Referring to this matter in his Budget statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that obviously it would increase the number of retail outlets for the sale of tobacco and cigarettes. But it was not expected that it would increase the total consumption of cigarettes, and it was not to be regarded as indicating any change of attitude on the part of the Government regarding propaganda about the risk of cancer arising from cigarette smoking. Broadly speaking, that must be true. At present the outlets are so wide that I cannot imagine any increase is likely to tap any untapped source of consumption, and I should not expect to see any great rise.
One objection I have heard raised, and upon which I should welcome some observations from the Treasury Bench, is that by withdrawing the necessity for registration the disposal of stolen cigarettes will be facilitated. From time to time we hear complaints of considerable thefts of tobacco and cigarettes, and it is suggested that if the necessity for registration is withdrawn the disposal of stolen stock will be facilitated. I cannot

see that that is likely to be the case, because obviously those who commit thefts of this character now do not experience any great difficulty in disposing of their illicit stocks, and I do not think it would be found to be any easier to dispose of them if the necessity for registration is removed.
In any case, there has never been any limitation, other than the limitation of fixed premises, about the issue of a tobacco dealer's licence. If one had the requisite premises one could secure a licence. I have forgotten the actual number but it runs into hundreds of thousands. For that reason, I say "Goodbye" with no heart-burning at all. It is well to get rid of some of the archaic administration machinery in the Department and to concentrate on things that really matter. Nevertheless, I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to inform us of any observations the Customs and Excise has from its experience on whether or not there is a possibility of, for example, the sale of stolen cigarettes being facilitated more easily.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Wade: We should consider this matter very carefully indeed before approving this Clause. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the Excise Duty on tobacco dealers' licences was to be abolished it sounded reasonable enough, but I believe that there is more in this than merely the abolition of a duty which yields a small return to the Treasury. I understand the return is worth about £100,000 a year; and views may differ on whether or not that is a small sum.
Whatever the amount of duty and the cost of collecting it this whole matter should be considered in relation to a very much wider question—the desirability or otherwise of extending the outlets for the sale of tobacco, particularly cigarettes. I am not a total abstainer from smoking. I cannot regard myself as an anti-smoker, and I do not speak with any violent prejudices on the subject. In fact, I am not a very profitable customer to the retail tobacconist. I do not smoke more than half a dozen cigarettes a day, and I often go several days without smoking at all. I must admit that there are harmful effects from smoking.

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: What does the hon. Member do?

Mr. Wade: I listen to what other hon. Members have to say and, if I wish to intervene, I get to my feet to do so.

Sir K. Pickthorn: He would not always if he spent as much time in the Chamber as I do.

Mr. Wade: I will not argue with the hon. Member on this subject. I think that I have a complete answer, although it would not be relevant to the Clause.
I was saying that one must recognise the harmful effects of smoking, especially on young people. We cannot ignore the Report of the Royal College of Physicians of London, published in March, 1962, which pointed out that there is a strong statistical association between smoking, especially cigarettes, and lung cancer. It is not necessary for me to remind hon. Members or the Chancellor of the replies given by the Minister of Health to a number of Questions on this subject. I will quote from only one. The Minister of Health said in March, last year:
The Government certainly accept that the report"—
that is, the Report to which I have just referred—
demonstrates authoritatively and crushingly the casual connection between smoking and lung cancer and the more general hazards to health of smoking."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March, 1962; Vol. 655, c. 888.]
We must consider the Clause in the light of that evidence and what may be the effect of the abolition of this duty.
As I understand it—and I think that on this point there is general agreement—the sale of tabacco and cigarettes will no longer be limited to sale from premises. It will be open to anyone to sell cigarettes anywhere, in the street if they wish. In other words, the general peddling of cigarettes will become not only possible but permissible. I want to be fair, and I am not criticising travelling salesmen or the proprietors of mobile shops. I know that they can be of great convenience to the housewife and we are accustomed, for example, to seeing the ice-cream vendor. He and other salesmen are welcome.
Is it desirable, however, that cigarettes should be sold in the same way? What, for example, will be the effect on

children? Is it thought possible that children will be encouraged to buy cigarettes and, in this connection, what kind of control, if any, will be exercised? I am aware, whoever the vendor may be, that there is a law relating to the sale of cigarettes to children, but we must remember that there is some difficulty to ensure that this law is kept.
I will also quote from a letter I have received from the National Union of Retail Tobacconists. I do not intend to rely for my case solely on this one letter. Some hon. Members may say that this organisation has a special interest, but I will quote from the letter in passing. It is dated 14th May, 1963, and states:
The new circumstances in the tobacco trade—the publicity which is being given by the Government and other bodies due to the Royal College of Physicians' report—we feel make it even more important that there should be control of some kind. The Act covering the sale of cigarettes to children, which previously was controlled in some measure by the fact that tobacco retailers would not in most cases sell cigarettes to juveniles and could be prosecuted if they did so, is now ridiculous"—
The union maintains that it would become ridiculous as a result of the Clause. The letter continues:
as there can be no control over persons who hawk or peddle cigarettes from street kiosks, barrows, or even street corners—they have no premises from which control can be enforced.
Turning from that quotation from the National Union of Retail Tobacconists I quote from another source, which could not by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as having a special interest in this subject, certainly not from the point of view of retailing cigarettes. This is an extract from the Police Review of 12th April, 1963.
Comments on the Budget are not usual on this page, but it is interesting to speculate whether Mr. Maudling knows what he has done by the odd and microscopic concession of abolishing the 5s, annual licence hitherto required for the sale of tobacco. The main beneficiaries of this reform will be the tobacco thieves, and more particularly receivers of stolen tobacco. The absence of any licence has hitherto been a useful overture in police discussions with those who are proclaiming themselves to be tobacco dealers.
The article goes on to comment on the view of the National Union of Retail
Tobacconists and says:
But the National Union of Retail Tobacconists seems to have gone too far in saying that the thieves will now be able to sell tobacco


and cigarettes, 'where they like—from street cars or from barrows, for example'. Hawking tobacco will presumably remain an offence (penalty £100) under Section 189(2) of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952; the Chancellor said nothing about this, but we hope there is no intention (there can be no need) to tamper with it.
I have been studying that point. What is to be the effect on Section 189 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952? If we look at the Schedule on page 95 of this Bill we find that among Sections which are to be repealed are Sections 187 to 189 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952. It would appear, therefore, that the writer of the article in the Police Review was incorrect and that Section 189 will be repealed and there will be no control whatever over the sale of tobacco and cigarettes. The position will be different from that of general peddling of other articles.
We must give serious thought to this risk of making it easier to dispose of stolen tobacco and cigarettes. That is no reflection on the reputable trading salesman, but this is a serious problem. I am told that the only figures published in the tobacco trade Press are in a survey of 1961 which shows that 12½ million cigarettes were stolen in one month in forty-five raids. That gives an indication of the number of thefts which take place. The number since then has increased considerably, but 12½ million at 4s. 6d. per twenty represents £137,813 a month, or just over £1½ million a year, which is a considerable sum.
I have tried to point out that the effect of the repeal of Sections 187 to 189 of the 1952 Act would mean that even a pedlar's licence would not be necessary. Anyone could sell cigarettes anywhere. I could obtain cigarettes from a wholesaler and sell them anywhere with no necessity for any kind of licence. Therefore, there would be no control over my activities. That is the point I am making.
Even if that were not so, even if it were necessary to have, say, a pedlar's licence, there is some distinction between a tobacco dealer's licence and, say, a hawker's licence. I am informed—I am relying on information given to me which I have every reason to believe is correct—that when a retail tobac-

conist obtains his supplies from a wholesaler, he produces his tobacco dealer's licence. If it is permissible for a wholesaler to sell to anybody—say, with a pedlar's licence or with no licence at all—there would be no check whatever. It would seem to me that this inevitably would increase the danger or the opportunities for disposing of—

Mr. Barber: I know that I will have an opportunity later of answering, but I am not sure that I follow the hon. Member. What is there to prevent a pedlar or anybody else from obtaining a tobacco dealer's licence?

Mr. Bence: He has no fixed premises.

Mr. Wade: That is the point. Unless he has fixed premises—

Mr. Barber: Anybody with fixed premises—I have fixed premises—can get a tobacco dealer's licence. I could get one in respect of my house without difficulty.

Mr. Wade: That is one of the points which the police make. Anybody selling from fixed premises—say, a tobacconist's shop—exercises caution in selling to children, but there is always the risk that the licence may be taken away from somebody who breaks the law.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Is not the point that the police themselves say that the requirement to have a licence makes it much easier for them to control the outlets for stolen tobacco and cigarettes?

Mr. Wade: Yes, I am obliged to my hon. Friend. That is the burden of the article which I have quoted from the Police Review.
I must express concern and raise this query about the effect of the repeal of the Sections of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952. This will mean that cigarettes can be sold anywhere without control and without the necessity of obtaining any kind of licence.

Sir James Duncan: I always thought that the Liberal Party was in favour of freedom.

Mr. Wade: I entirely agree. I start with the basic principle—

Mr. Lubbock: Freedom, but not licence.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. F. Blackburn): Order. We are not debating the philosophy of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Wade: I am greatly provoked, Mr. Blackburn, and I would very much like to deliver a lecture on the philosophy of both Liberalism and liberty, but I respect your ruling and will return to the subject.
It is only recently that the system of collection of the duty has been changed. I recognise that if this small duty is to be collected annually, the cost of collection is probably considerable in proportion to the amount raised. It was only about two years ago, however, that the change was made whereby the licence could be paid for at four-yearly intervals, which certainly simplified the procedure and, I imagine, would have reduced somewhat the costs of collection.
I am not one who would normally advocate any increase in duty, but in the special case of tobacco and cigarettes would be inclined to increase the duty if the cost of collection is so great, not because I am against increasing retail outlets generally, but because one must regard the whole subject of the sale of tobacco and cigarettes from the rather wider aspect of the health of the country. The Government have recognised that this is a problem affecting the health of the country. We should think twice before taking a step which will make it so much easier to sell cigarettes anywhere without any form of control.

8.45 p.m.

Sir Kenneth Thompson: I must declare a three-fold interest. First, I am a smoker, a rather more enthusiastic one than the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade). Secondly, I have a somewhat minimal interest in the retail tobacco trade. Thirdly, I have arranged facilities for the tobacco trade to explain its case to hon. Members at a meeting in the House of Commons tomorrow night. The Finance Bill has got away at such a reckless gallop that my arrangements have misfired. It had seemed to me that, since the tobacconists, who know most about the processes of the distribution of tobacco, have strong feelings about my right hon. Friend's proposal to abolish this duty, they should have a chance to explain their point of view to hon. Members. This is very largely the

case which has just been made out by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West.
There are two very important factors which my right hon. Friend ought seriously to consider. First, whatever we may say about it still being very naughty to sell cigarettes to children, under these new provisions it will be inconceivably more difficult to keep that kind of trade under control, no matter what anybody else says. We will have—this may be in every other way desirable—the ice-cream cart and the milkman's float carrying cigarettes for perfectly legitimate purposes and retailing them to adults who want to smoke.
The ice-cream vendor will find himself outside school premises when the children are coming out of school. However virtuous the man in charge may be, he will be under very considerable temptation indeed not to make sure that everybody who buys them is above the age of consent, or above the age of the Chancellor's consent to smoke. It will be extraordinarily difficult to control this kind of sale. If the Committee is committed to any point of view about smoking, it is that we should place all the impediments we can think of in the way of young people starting to smoke. This is where our campaign ought to have its strongest focus.
Secondly, it is very important that the police should not be further handicapped in their efforts to stop the sale of stolen cigarettes. I have mentioned my connection with the trade, which at one time was quite considerable but which has now almost disappeared. I know very well that there is a very large trade indeed, which in most cases is done across perfectly legitimate retail counters, in cigarettes which at some point in their history have been stolen. They find their way into and out of trade channels in the oddest ways. It is very difficult to identify what they are and where they come from. If we suddenly make it possible for every barrow at every street corner, for every ice-cream vendor and every mobile trader, to be able to acquire, by whatever means he thinks appropriate, even if accidentally dishonestly, the cigarettes he needs, the job of the police force in controlling this traffic will be very considerably increased.
I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will take seriously some of the


observations which have been made in this brief discussion, for what is a perfectly well-intentioned proposal, which would on the face of it have the unanimous support of everybody in the Committee, may well have some very serious consequences which were not foreseen when the proposal was put forward.

Dr. King: I rise to put the point of view which has been put to me by some of my constituents, most of them supporters of the Government. The retailers of tobacco in Southampton are organised in two groups, one of which is the Southampton branch of the National Federation of Retail Newsagents, Booksellers and Stationers; the other is the National Union of Retail Tobacconists. Some of these came to see me at my "surgery" last weekend. I must confess to a sentimental interest in the small retailer. I hope to show that this matter affects numbers of little retailers. I have always held that the man who runs a little shop and works for long hours earns his living as much as anyone else; that he renders a social service, and that it would be a pity if the supermarkets wiped him out of existence. This has some bearing on my attitude to this question.
This must be a unique debate. I know that very little money is involved, but I cannot remember an occasion when one group of citizens has asked the Government to continue taking money from it. That is the present position—the tobacconists are asking the Treasury to continue charging them for the privilege of selling tobacco. It is also unique in that following, as I do, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Sir K. Thompson)—he and I have consistently opposed each other right through this Parliament and the last one—I find myself in agreement with him.
It is true that the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party believe in free enterprise. That ought to mean that anyone should be able to sell anything wherever he wants to, and that anything that checks anyone from selling any commodity is harmful and should be removed. None of us, of course, believes that absolutely. Not a single member of the Committee would take away all the existing checks. As I

see it from my own knowledge in my own town, we get the newsagent who sells tobacco, the sweet man who sells tobacco, the grocer who sells tobacco. Very rarely do we get the man who can get a living simply out of selling tobacco, pipes and the rest.
Those people are unpaid tax collectors. The bulk of their income over the counter they take on behalf of the Treasury. I sometimes think that we do not appreciate the value of the work of those who, year in and year out, without any fee from the Government, collect taxes—and, as we all know, the tax on tobacco is terrific. According to the Budget statement, there are 400,000 people already selling tobacco—representing an average of one salesman for every fifty smokers.
That being so, I would not condemn them for being very worried about this proposal. They have a vested interest in resisting the wholesale spreading of permission to sell cigarettes and tobacco—especially as, I hope, their trade declines in the years ahead. I hope that the campaigns that the Ministry of Health has begun, and will continue, will attack the smoking habit, at childhood, at any rate, and that we shall cope with the serious fact of cigarette smoking as a direct cause of lung cancer.
It is in that shrinking market that these retailers are jealous and fearsome of any increase in the numbers of those who can sell cigarettes and tobacco. They have a right to be anxious, and if they fear that this move will hurt them then the Government, unless they can produce some very wonderful reason why this licence should be eliminated, should take some note of these fears.
Again and again these people have said to me, "We are worried about the fact that if tobacco is sold by anyone quite freely, without any control, it will make it more difficult for the police to catch criminals." We live in a society when any commodity that carries a heavy duty like this is as good as money; it is almost as valuable to a burglar to steal cigarettes as to steal currency.
The tobacconists on the whole, and their professional bodies—and they are professional bodies—have a code and standard of conduct which must be of value to the police in the checking and


tracing of stolen cigarettes and tobacco. Therefore, although there is very little money involved, I hope that the Government will take note of the fears that I have attempted to express on behalf of very worried men in my constituency, and that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West has expressed on behalf of the whole national organisation of tobacco retailers. If there is some terrific advantage in the proposal—and the Chancellor has not told us of one, and so far we have not heard of one in the debate—the right hon. Gentleman might well think again before he does something which may harm people who have been good and faithful servants as collectors of taxes.

Mr. Victor Yates: I am always interested when I hear in debate interventions which mention liberty, because some people seem to think that if one is in favour of a control which is vital to the community that is anti-libertarian. I am anxious about the Clause. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Waltham-stow, West (Mr. Redhead) said that a licence was not necesary to protect the Revenue. I am concerned as to whether this action by the Government will lead to more irresponsible action in the sale of tobacco and cigarettes especially to juveniles.
I have an interest as a non-smoker. I have not smoked for twenty-two years and the longer I live the more I am convinced that, in the interest of health, it is better not to smoke. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) has said, the retail tobacconists have shown some anxiety about this matter. The Midland Tobacconists' Trade and Benevolent Association expressed great concern on 26th April when it said, in a letter to me:
The medical report associating lung cancer with smoking has been the cause of considerable concern to our members and we have made every effort to ensure that cigarettes and tobacco are not sold to juveniles. If a licence to sell tobacco is no longer required, the distribution of cigarettes and tobacco will be extended over a wide field other than through the licensed shops which have previously been the channel of sales. The inevitable result is that little or no supervision can be exercised in distribution and it is anticipated that the sale of cigarettes and tobacco will occur through numerous selling activities of private individuals, street stalls and other outlets which previously were out-

side the provisions required for a licence to sell tobacco.
It should not be made easier for cigarettes and tobacco to be sold irresponsibly by small traders, whether or not the goods are stolen; and it is, of course, worse if they are stolen.
The Government are obviously anxious about the effects of smoking. The Minister of Health has just issued certain advice to hospitals dealing with the circumstances in which smoking should be allowed to take place. This shows that there is considerable concern. I have noticed, even in Birmingham, that heavy smoking is now quite common among children. How do they get their cigarettes? There must be a considerable number of school children today who smoke. Things were rather different when I was at school. There was not so much smoking then and parents seemed to be a little more strict. I have seen school children in the streets smoking cigarettes. In my view, if the Clause will make it easier for children to buy cigarettes, the outcome will be most regrettable.
9.0 p.m.
I am not concerned about the revenue, because the point does not directly arise in this connection, but I should regret it very much if the consequence of there being no licence and no kind of control was the spread of irresponsible sales of cigarettes particularly to children. Although I claim to be a libertarian, I am convinced that we must have controls on some things. We control the distribution of drugs, for instance. There are controls on alcohol. Yet now, apparently, there is not even to be registration, because this was a form of registration, in the sale of cigarettes and tobacco.
The police have said that cigarettes are much sought after and stolen nowadays. The Government must show good reason for their view that there will not be a spread of the irresponsible sale of cigarettes and tobacco, especially to children. Even the tobacconists themselves are worried.
The propaganda there has been about smoking has worried the tobacconists and the tobacco manufacturers, and they have, to some extent, been anxious to do what they can to minimise the harmful effects of smoking. Anything which


happened to diminish a sense of responsibility in the distribution and sale of pipe tobacco and cigarettes would, I feel, be dangerous and have most unfortunate consequences.

Mr. John Hynd: Like all those who have spoken so far, I feel that the Government owe the Committee an explanation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) pointed out, this is a unique situation. The people who pay the tax or contribute to the revenue in some way object to that privilege of theirs being removed. It is reasonable to assume that they have good ground for so doing. Their reasons have been stated in the Committee, and they seem very powerful.
What are the Government's reasons for wanting to abolish the licence? The police tell us, from their experience, that the lack of licensing will make it easier for illegal sales of stolen tobacco and cigarettes to take place and for sales to children to increase. Are they right or not? The police should know what they are talking about.
We have heard that the retail tobacconists are worried. No doubt, they have in mind the moral reason and the thought that cigarettes can be sold to children, but, to put it at its lowest, their concern must be that there will be a considerable diversion of the trade from the shops to the street-corner trader, the baker's boy, the milkman and the rest. Are their fears groundless or not?
Another aspect is the protection of the consumer. This may be a small point, but if we buy some bad pipe tobacco or bad cigarettes, which, perhaps, have been stored too long in the shop, we have the remedy of going back to the shop or of writing to the manufacturers about it if we get no satisfaction from the shop. It will be more difficult if people buy them from someone in the street.
What are the reasons behind this proposal? This practice has been in operation for a long time. The tobacco trade is satisfied with it. Those in the trade are happy to pay the small amount involved. The present practice provides a system of control and registration. It assists the police and avoids all the things

which we are told are likely to happen if the Clause is passed.
Before I can bring myself to vote for the Clause, I shall have to be satisfied by the Minister whether the police and the tobacconists are right in their fears of what will happen. If they are right, I should like to know the reason for this proposition.

Mr. Barber: I am not rising in order to try to bring the debate to a conclusion, but hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd), have asked a number of questions about this matter. This is the first time that any spokeman for the Government has had an opportunity to deploy the case for what is proposed in the Clause.

Mr. Houghton: On a point of order, Mr. Blackburn. Does not the Financial Secretary's difficulty stem in part from the growing practice of Ministers to say nothing about a Clause first but to rely on dealing later with questions which arise? Would it not be for the convenience of the Committee if the Minister moved the Clause and explained what it was about so that intelligent discussion might take place on it?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. F. Blackburn): That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Barber: I think that in certain circumstances there is a great deal in what the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has said, certainly with regard to a new Clause which has not been foreshadowed in the Budget or on the Second Reading of the Bill, but in other circumstances it is for the general convenience of the Committee for a Minister to listen to the debate, or at any rate part of it, in order to try to ascertain the main points of criticism so that he does not waste time by going over matters about which the Committee as a whole is agreed.
In order to get this proposal into perspective, I think that it would be useful to say something about the present position. The legal position relating to the sale of tobacco is contained in various Sections of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, as modified by the Finance Act, 1960. The effect of the law is that anyone who wishes to sell tobacco, whether


by wholesale or retail means, has to take out a tobacco dealers' licence, costing £1 for four years. These licences are issued on demand by Customs and Excise to anyone who wishes to sell tobacco from fixed premises, including automatic vending machines outside the premises.
There are about 430,000 licensed premises in all—that is, probably one for every fifty or so smokers. "Licensed premises" include public service vehicles on the roads and railways, and, as regards mobile shops, the law provides that licences may be issued in cases where there is a temporary public need—for example, on a housing estate before adequate shops are established. People who wish to sell tobacco for a short period—over a bar counter at a dance, for instance—are able to obtain an occasional tobacco licence, costing 4d. a day. So much for a factual account of the present state of the law.
I recognise full well that this matter is very important indeed and has a fair number of different aspects which hon. Members ought to consider. I can assure hon. Members that we have considered them, particularly my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have listened with care and interest to all that has been said, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Sir K. Thompson) because of his particular experience in these matters, to which he referred. I thought that, in the circumstances, he put the case with considerable moderation.
I genuinely believe that there is considerable misunderstanding about the present position and also about the intentions of the Government. I see one or two hon. Members opposite nodding assent. I can only say that hon. Friends on this side of the Committee have also approached me and explained that they think that this proposal, with its various consequences, is a pretty satisfactory solution.
The Committee will appreciate from what I have already said about the present state of the law that there are a number of salient factors. Licences amounting to 430,000 a year are issued on demand. They are issued automatically to anybody who has fixed premises. It need not be a shop; it can be an ordinary house, a fiat or anything. He applies for the licence and gets it automatically.
I understood the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) referred to the possibility of a licence being withdrawn. Naturally, this was a point that we considered before reaching a decision. I inquired of Customs and Excise whether they had any record of one of these licences being withdrawn. They certainly could not bring one to mind. There may be the odd case, but I have never heard of anyone having his licence withdrawn, nor, so far as I know, has a licence ever been refused to anybody who has any fixed premises to which he could point.
What about the cost of the licence? The cost is a mere 5s. a year, so this obviously to the tobacco dealer is of no significance whatever. Furthermore, licences are issued to members of the public, if they so wish, on demand, on payment of only 5s. a year, to put up an automatic vending machine for the sale of tobacco, I am told that Customs and Excise, as they are bound to do in accordance with the legislation as it exists at present, have issued licences to individuals who wanted to put up slot machines in their homes. I am told that quite a number of people have actually done this. Customs and Excise did not refuse licences to them. They had fixed premises, they became tobacco dealers and they put up their slot machines. Therefore, the first point to recognise is that the present licensing system provides no effective deterrent to smoking or to the sale of tobacco.
I shall try to explain to the Committee the reasons for this change. The reason for abolishing the licensing system is very simple. Originally the system was introduced to safeguard the Tobacco Duty. After the most thorough examination, Customs and Excise, which have operated this system for very many years, reached the conclusion that it no longer played any useful part in the protection of the duty, which was the principal purpose for which it was originally proposed. That being the case, it would, I suggest, be very foolish to maintain the system which, incidentally, involves a very considerable amount of administrative work, as hon. Members will appreciate when it is borne in mind that some 430,000 tobacco dealers are involved.

9.15 p.m.

Dr. King: The hon. Member said that a great deal of administrative work would be saved. He cannot have it both ways. He suggested that anyone could get a licence. What administrative work is involved in passing a document over a counter?

Mr. Barber: If the hon. Member had waited a moment he would have seen why I mentioned the administrative work involved. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West pointed out that the annual yield was over £100,000. This figure has been mentioned once or twice in the debate. But a great deal of the £100,000 a year is absorbed by the cost of collection and administration; even though it is automatic, obviously people must administer the system, and it costs a great part of the £100,000 a year which is collected.

Sir K. Thompson: I refrained from making this point when I spoke earlier, but part of the case of the tobacco retail trade is that the licence is so small as to be derisory and that it ought to be enough not only to cover the cost of administering the scheme but also to make it worth while to be a retail tobacconist.

Mr. Barber: I understand that a substantial sum was suggested by the retail tobacconists to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary who saw them. I do not know what sum was involved.

Mr. du Cann: It was £20.

Mr. Barber: But this is not a duty which is imposed or a licensing system imposed in order to raise revenue. The purpose of the licensing system originally and ever since has been to protect the Tobacco Duty. As I have explained, in the view of the Customs and Excise who have administered this for many years it no longer serves any useful purpose in that context.

Mr. Wade: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the retail tobacconists assist in raising a very large sum of revenue and that they are unpaid tax collectors? Surely this is a reasonable amount when compared with the total amount of revenue raised from the sale of tobacco and cigarettes.

Mr. Barber: The hon. Member is saying that because the tobacco duty is so high—I understood that in fact it was paid by the manufacturers—the people who sell cigarettes and tobacco in shops should have a special protection provided by the House which would result from a licensing system. That seems to be the conclusion to be drawn from what he said. I have referred to the cost of collection and to the gross yield of £100,000 a year only to make it plain to the Committee that the issue cannot be decided on the ground of the revenue involved. There are much wider considerations to be taken into account.

Mr. William Baxter: Will the hon. Member explain to the House how many staff will be redundant in his establishment as a result of the abolition of the licences?

Mr. Barber: I cannot do that off-the-cuff, but there will be a considerable saving as a result of this decision.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) referred to mobile shops. Bearing in mind that these licences are issued automatically to nearly 500,000 establishments, it is a bit of an anomaly that some mobile shops, although not all, do not qualify for a licence. Between the last Budget and now several hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have complained to me—I dealt with the matter in Committee last year—that the prohibition to sell tobacco in respect of certain mobile shops is an unnecessary inconvenience for people who live in remote rural areas such as Scotland and, I have no doubt, the West Country and elsewhere.
If I can give an example which I have mentioned in the past, in my own village in Yorkshire we are visited by an excellent mobile shop, but the shopkeeper cannot sell me cigarettes. Of course I do not stop smoking merely because he is not allowed to sell me cigarettes. I have a little more inconvenience and I have to make sure that I get them from some other source.
I have to point out first that I do not think that the inconvenience because of the prohibition on certain mobile shops from selling tobacco is nearly as great as some hon. Members have tried to make out in the past, although I have never


denied that it exists. Secondly, the advantage to the mobile shops is purely incidental to the decision which we have taken. If we had thought that the licensing system served any useful purpose, we would certainly have kept it.
The next question which one asks is what are the reasons which have been put forward for keeping this system. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton referred to one of the most important reasons which have been mentioned in the debate, that of health. This is an aspect which, in the light of all that the Government have said in the past year or so on the subject of smoking and health, was naturally considered by my right hon. Friend with the utmost care before he reached this decision, but he came to the conclusion that the present system in no way restricted consumption, although, as I said a moment ago, it might cause some marginal inconvenience. Certainly a licence issued on demand to anybody who has a house or a shop and costing 5s. a year could hardly be said to be a deterrent, and my right hon. Friend and I believe—I promise the Committee after the most careful consideration—that the abolition will have no significant effect on the consumption of tobacco.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walton and the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West referred to children. As there is not likely to be any significantly greater sale of tobacco as a result of this proposal, I cannot see that there will be any greater opportunity for sales to children. Merely because shopkeepers no longer need to pay 5s. a year does not mean on that account that they are likely to begin to flout the law which prohibits the sale of tobacco to children. In view of what has been said, I must make it clear that the law prohibiting the sale of tobacco to children will remain in force and is not at all affected by what we are now doing.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West said that there would be no control over the sale to children, but surely he is not suggesting that we should now make illegal all slot machines wherever they may be. Of course, my right hon. Friend and I gave great thought to these matters, but we do not believe that this will make a ha'p'orth of difference to the amount of tobacco consumed by children,

although we recognise that that is a matter of great importance.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West asked what would be the effect of the proposals on the possibility of disposing of stolen tobacco. One thing is quite certain—the need to obtain a licence costing 5s. a year is no bar to larceny or receiving. The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) and the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, said that there would no longer be any form of control, but I remind the Committee that Customs and Excise will still retain its existing powers to enter and search a tobacco trader's place of business even when the licensing system goes.
Finally, it might be said that existing tobacco dealers should be protected from competition. The hon. Member for Itchen was perfectly frank about it and said that they had a vested interest. I am not sure that this is an argument that I would accept.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West referred to the National Union of Retail Tobacconists. As I save said, so far as I understand the position the union would accept a greatly increased licence fee of £20, or £20 over four years, I do not know which. It would, at any rate, be greatly increased. I have no doubt that this would have the effect of cutting out certain small shopkeepers such as the general village shop, and I cannot believe that this would be right.
The hon. Member for Itchen again sincerely, and I thought frankly, said that he was influenced by "a sentimental interest in the small retailer". I think that as we are discussing small retailers I should read to the Committee what was said by the vice-president of the National Union of Small Shopkeepers. He said:
We welcome the Chancellor's decision as a good move giving the small shopkeeper more freedom.
It is therefore wrong to think that the retail trade generally is in some way opposed to this on the ground that its position, which it thinks has to some extent been protected in the past, will no longer be protected in the future.
I have dealt with this at some length because I recognise the strong feelings which are held, and also, with respect, the misunderstandings which I think exist. I


hope the Committee will agree that it is sensible to get rid of a system under which licences are issued automatically at an insignificant cost to the licensee but at considerable administrative cost; indeed, a licensing system which no longer serves any useful purpose.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Like other speakers, I confess to an interest in this in that I am heavily subsidised by smokers. I have not smoked since I left school, thanks largely, I believe, to the action of a Labour Chancellor, who, at the age when I might have continued to smoke, very timely doubled the price of cigarettes at one fell swoop.
Much the biggest question on this Clause seems to be the effect that it will have on the tiny shifts in consumer preference which will make a difference between the spread of smoking and the decline of smoking, and the consequent thousands of man years lost at the prime of life through deaths from lung cancer. Smoking is something about which people have had minor preferences in the past, and then suddenly it became recognised as a killer. It poses great social problems, and I would not seek in any way to be dogmatic about them, but I find it very difficult to understand how the Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Financial Secretary, can be so dogmatic as to say they are sure that the abolition of the licence fee will have no effect on the consumption and sale of tobacco.
What evidence have they for this? From where did the Chancellor get his evidence? Has he considered how the habit of smoking is formed, and at what age? Has he considered at what age it tends to become an addiction and how easily the habit is broken? What influences are available to the Government to dissuade people from this habit, or prevent them falling victim to it in the first place? What influences are open to the Government? What about the inelasticity of demand with price? What about the style of the campaign now used by the Government which, I think, many sociologists and advertising men feel to be quite ineffective in putting across the Government's point of view?
There is no evidence that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has considered

the full social background with serious social evidence on this question. It is not merely a medical question. Across the river, in St. Thomas's Hospital, there are many patients dying from lung cancer who are attended by doctors who are much heavier smokers than average and who fully recognise the dangers of smoking. Here we have a question in respect of which we need the help of social scientists of all kinds. I am sure that the Chancellor has not even sought that help or advice.
9.30 p.m.
The Clause is not very important, but it is extraordinarily irresponsible of the Government to bring forward a Clause which will certainly not reduce the sale of tobacco before they have done anything about the sale of tobacco from vending machines, about limiting the advertising of tobacco or making any impact in the schools by explaining to youngsters all the effects of smoking. It would have been much better if the Government had taken some other legislative steps first and then came along with what is obviously tidying up legislation in respect of a point which had irritated the Chancellor or a senior Treasury official and which, from a bureaucratic point of view, was quite unacceptable.

Mr. Barber: It has irritated a considerable number of hon. Members on both side of the Committee, who have complained about the anomaly of mobile travelling shops visiting their villages and outlying parts of the country and not being able to sell tobacco. This has caused great inconvenience to people living in outlying farmhouses. It is not simply a case of officials in the Treasury; it goes much wider than that. The hon. Member is being quite unfair to my right hon. Friend in suggesting that he has not considered the health and social aspects. My right hon. Friend has considered these with the greatest care, because he recognises all the issues which have been discussed this afternoon.

Dr. Bray: But the hon. Member has not said what social evidence has been received. I believe that the Chancellor has received medical evidence, and I agree that many hon. Members have been pressing for the abolition of the


licence. But other hon. Members have been pressing far many other reforms. All hon. Members on this side of the Committee have been pressing for them, but our arguments are not always heeded. I ask for a much more thorough investigation of the social questions involved than the Government have undertaken. Will the hon. Member tell the Committee whether he has consulted the Government social survey on this question?

Mr. Barber: I hesitate to keep rising, but the answer is "No", for the reasons that I gave in my speech earlier, namely, that this licence is so cheap at 5s. a year that it is issued automatically. Anybody can get it and can put a vending machine in his own home, and not merely in a shop. It was for this and the other reasons I have mentioned that we came to the conclusion that this proposal would have no serious effect on consumption.

Dr. Bray: It is clear that no serious advice has been obtained from social investigators in respect of this matter.
It is quite out of place either for the Government or for hon. Members on this side to be dogmatic upon the question of the sale of tobacco, the taxation of tobacco, or the advertising of tobacco, but I am extremely unhappy about the fact that this time next year we shall know less about the sale of tobacco, about where it is being sold, and to whom it is being sold, even than we know today, unless the Government take very definite steps to launch a thorough investigation not only into the medical aspects, but the social aspects of this habit, which we all so well understand, but which, when we see men dying in back rooms in our constituencies and in the hospitals we visit, we feel that the Government have not go down to considering in the detail which is warranted.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: I shall not detain the Committee for long. I wanted to have the benefit of hearing the alleged reasons for the Clause. I had to wait some time, but I am obliged to my hon. Friend for what he eventually said, in his usual kind way. But I am not enlightened. I have sat through the debates on many Finance Bills, and I have found that, irrespective of which Government are in power, there are

always one or two Clauses of abject non-sense. I believe that this Clause comes under that heading. No reason has been given for it. Whichever way they are made, the arguments cancel each other out.
We are told that there is no need for the licence, because anyone can get it, but when somebody objects we hear that all sorts of representations have been made because cigarettes are not on sale in villages or at corner shops. Yet we are told that anyone may obtain a licence in respect of his own house. This does not make sense. I cannot understand why we have to do this sort of thing and upset the greatest possible number of people in order to achieve the least amount of good, which is precisely what the provisions in the Clause will cause to happen. We are told that there are about 430,000 licensed dealers, which means that there is one for every 50 smokers, so there can be no question of a restriction on supplies.
The amount of the licence fee is very small. I do not understand the cost factor, but it should not cost a lot to collect £1 every four years. I think that the cost factor ought to be examined rather then the figure of the licence fee changed. But a substantial case could be made out in relation to costs and we have not heard it. There is a range of possible amounts for the licence between the maximum which has been mentioned or the amount of 5s. a year, or £1 every four years, as it is at present. The amount could be raised to £1 a year, which would result in a figure of nearly £500,000 and if the people in the Customs and Excise cannot collect an amount of that size without losing money, they want their heads examined.
My hon. Friend may be correct when he says that this does not amount to anything, that anyone could apply for a licence and all the rest of it. We in this country are a peculiar people and when we have to go to a certain amount of trouble and have to make application for something, generally speaking, we set out to do the job properly; and there is a certain amount of business to be derived from this. It is not a question of setting up a stall in the corner of a field in order to sell cigarettes. A certain amount of responsibility arises. The existence of the licence also helps to ensure that reasonable common sense is exercised in the


distribution of tobacco. If that control is removed the number of outlets for the sale of cigarettes must be increased.
Why do we have to spend hours discussing this sort of "drivel" which finds its way into a Finance Bill? Has not this Committee anything better to do than to mess about with something which the Financial Secretary—we all know that he has to read his brief—says is of no consequence and does not matter? I wish to protest against the presence of a Clause of this sort and against the system which allows such nonsense to be inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Bence: We must be fair to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why."] Certainly, we must be fair to him. There have been protests because the present system of issuing licences to purvey tobacco and snuff relates the sale to fixed premises. There is a case for the use of mobile shops on housing estates and in similar places and which could be licensed for the sale of tobacco and cigarettes. The Financial Secretary said that it will still be unlawful to purvey tobacco and its by-products to children. Under the present licensing system the necessary authorities, including the police, know from where cigarettes are being sold. Once this system of licensing or registration is abolished we will not know who the tobacco traders are.
The hon. Gentleman then said that the Customs and Excise will have the right to examine, search and inspect the premises of those carrying on an excise trade; those who will be engaged as excise traders. The trouble is that the Department will not know who and where the traders are once the licence is abolished. The traders will be able to come and go as they please, even to do moonlight flits.
I hasten to say that I agree with the abolition of the licence. Despite this, I believe in protecting the consumer. By all means abolish the licence, but register the traders—and I would extend this to traders who purvey consumer goods to the community in general—so that we know the sources of supply and who the traders are. Is it such a costly business to register all sources from which tobacco is being supplied?
After all, subsection (1) states:
The excise duty on a tobacco dealer's licence … is hereby abolished … but a tobacco

dealer shall nevertheless be deemed … to be carrying on an excise trade and to be an excise trader.
If the licence is abolished and there is no form of registration, how will the Government know who the traders are? This is an absurdity. If they are carrying on an Excise trade they should be registered so that control over them is possible.
There are many wine merchants and publicans. They are Excise traders and we know who and where they are. Now the Government are creating a new batch of Excise traders and no one will know who they are. I am rather surprised that such a proposition should have been made. I am not satisfied that the community will be protected from the distribution of tobacco and its by-products, particularly young people.
This experience is probably not unique to me, but I have seen children of about 9 years old smoking cigarettes which they have bought for 3d. each. In the village in which I was brought up we used to smoke clay pipes at the age of 7. This is by the way, but I would not support a system of having a body of people, groups of excise trader, able to market an excisable product without having to be registered, with no control over them and no possibility of knowing who they are. This is a dangerous procedure and I hope that the Financial Secretary will reconsider the matter.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: It seems an extraordinary state of affairs that the Financial Secretary should find the majority of the Committee taking this attitude to a reduction in taxation suggested by the Treasury and hon. Members saying that the taxation should continue.
I support the Financial Secretary, because I believe that any tax which costs more to collect than it produces is a bad tax. Those hon. Members who have spoken against this Clause have used the argument that tobacco could be sold to children, but that happens at present. They have used the argument that tobacco would be stolen, but it is being stolen at present. I cannot recall hearing of a case in which a person has been summoned for selling tobacco without a licence. This whole matter is a storm in a teacup.

Mr. Edward Milne: This debate has an air of unreality, because many of the things which a large number of hon. Members say will be possible after this change are already possible with the licence fee in operation. I declare an interest in this matter. I am one of the few hon. Members who has never smoked but who has sold a considerable amount of cigarettes in my lifetime in the distributive trade. I am possibly the only Member who has served on the Newsagency, Tobacco and Confectionery Wages Council. I hope that all those who have the ear of tobacconists and vested interests will prevail upon them to move their wage rates from among the most deplorably low in the country. That would be a most worth-while campaign.
The link-up between the number of retail outlets for selling cigarettes and the incidence of lung cancer, as related to this extension, is already a phenomenon of the retail trades. The number of retail outlets, ranging from people who sell in their own homes with automatic machines to the vast monopoly interests of super-stores, self-service and other supermarkets which have sprung up, have made a highly monopolistic industry.
Strangely enough, under the existing regulations practically the only people who cannot sell cigarettes are those with retail shops who have purchased licences for the shops they own and control but are unable to make sales in that way. They can get round the difficulty by having orders taken at the central premises and then handling the goods over to customers on the rounds. The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) spoke about people being able to set up a stall at the edge of a field and to sell cigarettes there. That can be done at present provided a licence is obtained. There is no alteration in the situation.

Mr. Hirst: That is exactly the point I was making. I said that all the arguments cancel each other out and the whole matter is made a nonsense.

Mr. Milne: The point the hon. Member made was very valid in discussion of this Clause. If we want to prevent the theft of cigarettes we shall not do that under the Finance Bill but by legislation

for the prevention of crime. If we want to prevent the sale of cigarettes to children, we must impose a penalty on the trader who sells those cigarettes. Whether he has bought a licence is beside the point. If we want to educate people to stop smoking to avoid lung cancer, we do it in many other ways. One method is by supporting the Government's campaign by assisting distribution of the excellent posters issued by the Minister of Health. Possibly, we could ask retail tobacconists to assist us in this campaign by giving away a poster with each packet of cigarettes they sell. I do not know whether that idea will fall on fertile ground.
On the other band, we could decide—and if we took our courage into our hands, we would decide—that the advertising revenue drawn from the tobacco interests would be cast aside and that the advertising of cigarettes was to be stopped entirely. These are all matters by which the spread of smoking could be reduced and, possibly, even eradicated, but merely to deal with it in Clause 7 of the Finance Bill is not the way to do it. We have wasted a tremendous amount of Parliamentary time—possibly, I have contributed to it—in dealing with the Clause to eradicate evils that we have other methods of eradicating.

Mr. Houghton: With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne), no time is wasted in Committee on the Finance Bill. This is an important matter. The debate would have been assisted had the Financial Secretary, as I suggested when I intervened earlier, got up and introduced the Clause by giving a full explanation of the reasons why the Government have included it in the Bill. Then, he would have been a little more relaxed and that would have been to the advantage of his cause.
When the hon. Gentleman got up, he was rather too passionate. Some of us recoiled from the obvious conviction of his arguments, because we thought that he was pleading too much.

Mr. Barber: All I wanted was to go out and have a cigarette.

Mr. Houghton: The hon. Gentleman's main preoccupation in the Finance Bill is to facilitate the business, and I suggest that he did not do it.
We have listened to the debate, the subject is almost exhausted and I suggest that it is now a matter of personal judgment. I am bound to advise my right hon. and hon. Friends that this is almost a matter of deep personal conviction, for which we have special provision in the standing orders of the Parliamentary Labour Party. For myself, and I think that I speak for my hon. Friends beside me, we would not be able to vote against the Clause.
The matter of the licence and the licence duty could be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) suggested, two different things. Certainly, the licence duty of 5s. a year is neither here nor there and can scarcely make any difference to whether a retailer takes out a tobacco licence. This Committee would hesitate for a long time before making the licence duty £20 or £30. Then it would become a deterrent and a factor in the retail trade of which we would have to take account in many other directions. The Committee has to consider this matter on the basis of the licence duty as it is. We can dismiss that from our consideration.
The important question is whether the tobacco retailer should be licensed. If we are to have a licence as a kind of safeguard against selling stolen goods, presumably we have to ask all jewellers to have a licence as a safeguard against the sale of stolen jewellery. The fact that any goods might be stolen and put into distribution would justify the same kind of action, if it is a safeguard, as the issue of a licence to tobacco retailers. I do not think that that argument will stand up. I think that, licence or no licence, the selling of stolen goods is far too profitable a business today. It is part of the whole complex of crime. I do not think that the issue of a licence would be any real protection.
The next question is whether the possession of a licence denotes a more responsible retailer. Does the possessor of a licence behave more responsibly as a retailer than one who might not have to obtain a licence? I doubt whether there is anything in this argument either. If the licence were withdrawn from the disreputable retailer, there might be some point in it, but apparently a retailer can

break the law, be convicted of breaking the law, be convicted of receiving stolen goods, be convicted of any crime whatsoever, but still have a licence to sell tobacco. This is scarcely a guarantee that a licence denotes a more responsible retailer.
Two issues remain. One is whether the withdrawal of the licence duty and the abolition of the licence will in some way injure retail tobacconists. We are perfectly entitled to consider the effect of anything we do. Will it be prejudicial to their interests? Will it damage their trade? There is no evidence of that either, because we have been told that anyone can take out a licence on demand and, having taken it out, as long as he maintains it he will never lose it.
The second issue is that of health. We are all very worried about this. Is there anything in what is proposed in the Clause which will put tobacco more out of the reach of young people? If it would do that, I would feel that probably that was ample reason for retaining the licence. Having listened to the arguments and using my own judgment, I cannot feel convinced that to retain the licence and the licence duty can make any real difference to children's access to cigarettes and tobacco.
Before very long the nation will have to face the whole issue of health and smoking and make up its mind what it is going to do. At present, we are half-heartedly indulging in propaganda against the evils of smoking, but at the same time facilitating every means which the industry has of selling its products not only to children but to grown-ups also. The whole tobacco trade at present feels challenged by the findings of the Committee of the Royal College of Physicians and naturally is in an acute and painful dilemma. It has a sense of responsibility for the health of the community. It has vast commercial interests involved. The tobacco trade contributes no less than £900 million a year to the Exchequer, so the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have serious readjustments of his Budget to make if there were a substantial fall in the yield of Tobacco Duty.
Finally, there is the troublesome question—which may in some part have


given rise to the Government's decision—of the mobile shop. We must recognise new methods of retail, and we must also recognise the convenience that the mobile shop is in many scattered areas. It would be quite inconsistent with our sense of fair play if tobacco could be sold from stalls and shops but, for some reason of technical difficulty, could not be sold from a mobile shop. All these factors lead me personally to the conclusion that, on balance, the Government have strong arguments behind this Clause.
When, in Clause 2, we were dealing with the question of administration and redundancy, we heard how hard put the Customs and Excise would be in fulfilling the requirements of the new registration of gaming establishments. It may be that any staff the Department saves by abolition of the licence duty would assist the Department to discharge its responsibilites in other directions. I can only leave the matter there, and tell my hon. Friends that they must exercise their own judgment in what they do.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 8.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO SAMPLES OF HYDROCARBON OILS.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. du Cann: In reply to the strictures of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), I can certainly accept that it is the duty of a junior Minister to seek to assist the Committee in getting the business through. That being the case, I shall speak only briefly on the purpose of this Clause.
The Clause deals with a minor matter, but I hope that the Committee will think it a sensible one. Part 2 of the Second Schedule to the Finance Act, 1960, deals with the sampling by Customs officers of the fuel supplies of road vehicles and of oil in storage tanks. In certain circumstances, it allows a certificate by an authorised analyst—that is to say, an analyst from the Government laboratory—to be admissable in evidence in certain prosecutions under the Customs and Excise Act, 1952. The present provisions confine the certificate procedure to samples of heavy oils, and the Clause

would extend that procedure to cover also samples of light oils. The present provisions also confine the procedure to criminal prosecution under only two sections of the Customs and Excise Act. The Clause would extend it to all criminal and civil proceedings under that Act.
I hope that in sum the Committee may think it appropriate that if prosecution and defence both agree that it is not necessary to call for the personal attendance of an authorised analyst in court, it must be appropriate in these cases for the analyst to give a certificate. In certain cases one could visualise otherwise journeys of one hundred miles or more. This seems to us a useful revision of the law. It removes an obvious anomaly, in that Parliament has agreed in one case and we suggest that now it should agree in the generality. This will certainly result in a saving of time and money. I commend it to the Committee.

Mr. Mitchison: The provisions as regards heavy oils are required to ensure whether the heavy oils have received rebate or not. If any hon. Member cares to look at the Schedule in the Finance Act, 1960, he will find that all these provisions bear the side-note "Rebated Heavy Oils". The question that puzzles me a little, and I ask the Economic Secretary to enlighten us on the matter, is what is the rebate in respect of hydrocarbon oils, or what other reason is there to extend this provision from heavy oils to hydrocarbon oils? Has it, for instance, anything to do with the next Clause which is concerned with pipelines? We should have been told why the provision in the 1960 Act is confined to heavy oils and why it is now found necessary to extend it to hydrocarbon oils.
On the second point mentioned by the Economic Secretary, I entirely agree that what is reasonable in a criminal prosecution is in matters of Customs and Excise even more reasonable in civil proceedings. They may have something of a criminal character in them in this connection, but they are, nevertheless, matters where the type of evidence required in civil proceedings does not require the strictness called for in criminal proceedings. Therefore, if any relaxation in the ordinary rules by not requiring an analyst to be called applies


already in criminal proceedings it should certainly be extended to civil proceedings which are substantially of the same character.
Here again, I ask how it came about that these provisions in the 1960 Act were originally confined to criminal proceedings only. It may be that this is only another Government slip. I hesitate to come to that conclusion, but to those who say that an accidental ommission was made one is ready to allow the filling up of the gap afterwards. I do not know what the circumstances were here, but the Economic Secretary should not be deterred by anything that has been said earlier in the debate from getting up in the middle of the debate and giving a fuller explanation than he gave at the beginning.

Mr. du Cann: I am obliged for that invitation, and I shall do what I can to satisfy the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).
The fact is that the certificate procedure applies only to samples of heavy oils, as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested. The results of his researches are entirely accurate. I said a little more about it in my introduction, and I shall not go over that part again.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked why we now come forward with this proposal. Is there something we have missed? Have the Government been idle, slack, lacking in foresight? The answer, of course, is "Certainly not". It is merely a matter of practical experience evidencing that it would be wise to take these powers. As the hon. and learned Gentleman recognises, this is really not a major matter. Practical experience has shown that an authorised analyst has had to go to court to give evidence in person in a number of cases in which neither side would have required his attendance had any other course been possible.
I will give examples of the types of case. The first is the case involving a fraudulent mixture of rebated heavy oil, for example, paraffin, with petrol in order to make the petrol go further as a vehicle fuel, the resulting mixture being a light oil as defined by Section 195 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952. As I said—I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman has the point—the Clause, if

passed, would allow the certificate procedure to apply to light oils as well as to heavy oils.
Now, the second example. The certificate procedure applies only in criminal cases under the two main sections of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, which deal with the matter. Section 200 which prohibits the use of rebated heavy oil as road fuel, and Section 208, which prohibits the unauthorised mixing of light and heavy oils. Offences under these Sections are only summary offences punishable by fine. Experience has shown that in certain cases where frauds have been larger and systematic, the Customs has been advised that proceedings can be taken under the more severe indictment provisions of the Customs and Excise Act dealing with fraudulent evasion, and cases have been so instituted. As time went on, it seemed to us, in the light of experience, that it might be appropriate to take the certificate procedure.
Furthermore, a vehicle in which rebated oil is used as fuel may be forfeited to the Crown, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will know. The Customs and Excise Act provides that, in certain cases, the Customs must take court proceedings for the condemnation of the forfeited vehicle. These proceedings are not criminal but civil. That is the explanation of the final point about which the hon. and learned Gentleman asked. In the circumstances, I hope that he will say that he is satisfied.

Mr. Mitchison: On one point I am satisfied. This Clause has not very much connection with the impending General Election. That I do understand. When we come to anything more, I am not sure that I see the point.
The reason for having this arrangement in connection with heavy oils was that, in certain circumstances, there was a rebate on those heavy oils and the putting in of a marker was a method of identifying the heavy oils which had already received a rebate. I quite understand that. If they had not been identified, they might, as it were, have voted twice in the same Lobby and got two rebates, and we could not allow anything like that. But we have had no explanation of why it is necessary in regard to other things, except, I gather, that, if one mixes a heavy oil and a light oil, one may


produce something which, for one reason or another, requires to be marked.
I listened very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. I noted nothing which could have occurred since 1960 and not before 1960, and, in spite of all he has said, I come to the conclusion that in this instance the Government were not quite as perfect as he represented them to be. They had forgotten about the other cases and they had confined this to the most obvious case, that of the rebated heavy oils.
I think that the explanation on the other point was quite sufficient and satisfactory. All we can do here is to mourn once more the lack of foresight in Finance Bills and to say that it is very sad that we should be asked now, in 1963, to deal with something which has passed for three years unnoticed and unprovided for. I suppose that that is not an argument for not providing for it now.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 9.—(PIPE-LINES.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Barber: Perhaps I should follow the good example of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary and give a brief explanation on the purpose of the Clause.
The Clause simply supplements existing provisions in the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, relating to the transport under bond of dutiable commodities on which duty has not been paid so that pipelines of the types which are likely to be constructed in future under last year's Pipelines Act can be used for that purpose with Customs' approval and proper Revenue control. The alternative of requiring duty to be paid in all cases in advance of the conveyance of goods through a pipeline would be an unreasonable restriction on the natural and very important development of this trade.
The Clause is introduced this year because it is reasonable that the prospective operators should have firm knowledge at the planning stage of these ventures of the Customs' requirements which they will have to observe for the conveyance of dutiable commodities under

bond. The publication and the passing of the Clause will, I hope, make it possible to have detailed discussions with these people.
The commodity immediately in question is, of course, oil, but, in the longer term, pipelines for the transport of other dutiable goods may well become a commercial proposition and therefore the Clause is framed in terms of dutiable goods generally.

Mr. Mitchison: I stand much refreshed by the Financial Secretary's last remark. I have many times climbed to the top of hills on a hot day and wished that there was a pipeline leading beer or a similar beverage, in a cool and drinkable condition, to that exhausting place.
I am a little puzzled about the Clause. What it does can be summarised in this way. We are turning pipelines into bonded warehouses. That is what the Clause does, no more and no less. I should have thought that this was an extremely difficult thing to check. Has the Financial Secretary noticed the habits of tits with regard to milk bottles? They knock a little hole in the top of the bottle and drink the milk. I suppose that it would require more than a tit to knock a hole in a pipeline, but I should have thought that it was difficult to prevent people, if they were so minded, from getting dutiable goods—perhaps the beer that I have mentioned—out of the pipeline, and a great deal more difficult than to deal with a bonded warehouse.
These pipelines are going over very considerable distances. We know the thirsty souls who live in the countryside and for whom we provided in the Clause entitled "Brewers not for sale". But a pipeline passing by them in a tappable condition would be an almost irresistible temptation.
We should be told why the Government consider it necessary to do this. I can see that from the point of view of the pipeline owners it has certain conveniences, and I suppose that it must be a question of balance, but, on balance, I should have thought that, unless we are to have very stern and strict regulations about how the pipeline would be constructed, we were providing a hit of machinery which it might be extraordinarily difficult to enforce.
I suppose that in many cases the answer will be, "Who will take the trouble to tap a pipeline in order to get half a pint of petrol out of it?" But there are people who tap other things than pipelines. There are gentlemen who tap safes, for a sufficient consideration. What might happen on a dark night in the wilds of Wiltshire? A criminal gang may tap a pipeline full of petrol, beer, or whatever it may be, or may find that it is full of dutiable whisky on which the duty has not yet been paid.
The old-fashioned smuggler will not be in it with the modern pipeline tapper when he gets going. I had better not make too many suggestions or those who are criminally disposed will, no doubt, be prompted to exercise their nefarious activities. But surely the Government will either have to take precautions about someone else's pipeline for which there appears to be no sanction of machinery, or, failing that, will have tappable pipelines full of unknown valuable fluids all over the countryside.
I repeat again, has the Financial Secretary really considered what happens on a dark night in the wilds of Wiltshire? It was, I think, in another county that there was lately a little amateur witchcraft. If we can have witchcraft, surely pipeline tapping is quite a simple and easy matter. I wonder whether this has been given enough consideration.

Mr. Barber: The point which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has raised in the context of this Clause is an important one, and I can assure him that Customs and Excise have given very full consideration to it. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the Clause, he will see that the Commissioners of Customs and Excise are given virtually complete discretion as to the conditions which they may lay down before they approve a pipeline for these purposes.
They have also the power for "reasonable cause," which is a pretty general phrase, to vary the terms of their approval and, with a certain amount of notice, to revoke their approval, so I think that it is right to start from that point of recognising the powers which they will have under this Clause. There is something else which I should mention

to the Committee in answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The conveyance of goods by pipelines—dutiable goods, I think, is the phrase used here—is not something which is novel to Customs and Excise. In fact, pipelines are already in use for the conveyance of oil which has not yet borne duty, and these pipelines have been approved by Customs and Excise for Customs purposes as extensions of existing bonded warehouses.
The important point is that hitherto the pipelines have always been in the same ownership as the bonded warehouse in which they have either started or finished. Consequently, no practical difficulty of control has arisen. In the future, however, it may well be that pipelines will be constructed and operated by companies which are not themselves the owners of existing bonded warehouses or which are not the original owners of the dutiable goods which are conveyed. On the other hand, these companies will not necessarily be pure carriers but may, in certain circumstances, take over the ownership of commodities conveyed and dispose of those commodities to third parties.
I can, if the hon. and learned Gentleman is interested in this particular aspect, explain at greater length the facilities under the existing legislation, and the gaps in the existing legislation, for which we wish to make provision for the future. But I hope from what I have said that I have given him sufficient information to convince him that this has been thoroughly well-thought out by the Government and our advisers and that he will therefore give us his wholehearted approval and not divide the Committee on this occasion.

Mr. Mitchison: Reluctant as I am to divide the Committee on such a grave matter of policy as this, I find two complete absurdities, if the hon. Member will permit me the use of that word, in his explanation. The first is obvious—when is a pipeline not a pipeline? When it is a warehouse. Apparently hitherto the Government have proceeded by calling a pipeline a warehouse and treating it accordingly. Why do they want the Clause if they can always do that? It must have struck them suddenly, in one of those flashes of inspiration which happen particularly in connection with Customs and Excise legislation, that it is


a little absurd to treat a pipeline as an extension of a warehouse. They must have had some scruples about it. Perhaps it is the passion for truthfulness which seizes all political parties just before a General Election.
The other absurdity, although not quite so obvious, is eqally flagrant. We are empowering the Commissioners to approve a pipeline if they think that it is safe. We might as well ask them to approve a safe as immune from burglars. Who knows more about it, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise or the professional pipeline crackers who will soon be upon us? I back the criminal every day in this race. He will give one tap on the approved pipeline and, in spite of the approval, out will come the whisky or the beer.
The Financial Secretary is putting too much of a burden on the Commissioners. I have known them to refuse the simplest administrative task, such as licensing the sale of tobacco from moving vehicles, because it was too much for them to manage. Here they are embarking on the unknown and pitting their administrative wits against these pipeline crackers. The hon. Member is far too confident in his estimate of their powers, and he is confusing sound administration with sound safe cracking. The two things are quite separate. He must remember that when approving a pipeline the Commissioners do not know what can and what cannot be done in dark nights in Wiltshire. The Government have taken on too much in this Clause, and I hope that if we pass it today we shall not find too much mourning about the results tomorrow.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster-General (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
We have finished Part I of the Bill. Although we have not made all the progress which some of us perhaps hoped, it is, by the hours of this House, if not

perhaps in these days of another place, comparatively late in the evening. My experience of Finance Bills, which goes back some years, suggests that it is better to proceed, if one can, with the general co-operation and good will of the Committee rather than at an early stage try to drive the Bill through to a late hour. But I am bound to say that if the Committee is good enough to accept my Motion, I hope that we shall feel disposed to make rather better progress tomorrow without, again, I hope, sitting to an unduly late hour.

Mr. Houghton: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for moving the Motion, which I cordially accept on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends. We might have got a little further had there not been unexpected delays at two points in the journey today, but I am bound to say that in my 15 years on Finance Bills, I have never known an occasion when we reached Clause 9 on the first day. So by all tradition we have now made very good progress indeed.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman is looking not at the first nine Clauses but at the remaining 53 or 54, though to illustrate the pecularities of this Bill I would mention that on the Notice Paper at the moment there is no Amendment between Clause 15 and Clause 33, and I have never known that before. So we have really nothing to guide us in our progress through the Bill except our application to the task and a reasonable amount of good will because, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition said—what did he say?—"We are moving on, brothers", I believe he said. Anyhow, there is a more recent utterance of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—"We are riding high." We can afford to be magnanimous and make good progress tomorrow, because it is the last Finance Bill that the right hon. Gentleman will have anything to do with.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WOOLWICH ARSENAL

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. I. Fraser.]

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I wish to draw attention to the problem of redundancy at Woolwich Arsenal and the need to make clearer the rôle of the Royal Ordnance Factory and to increase its competitiveness. I also want to draw attention to the closing of the apprentice shop and to the waste of vast areas of War Office land in my constituency. It is by no means the first time I have had to raise the problems of Woolwich Arsenal in the House, and it will not be the last time unless the problems are better tackled by the Ministers than they have been on past occasions.
I begin on the subject of redundancy and with a tribute to the Minister. The actual handling of the problems caused by redundancy in recent years in the R.O.F. has been well done. Great care, skill and humanity have been shown in keeping individual hardship to the minimum, and this is appreciated. Even so, hardship and inconvenience do, of course, result, and at present there are skilled workers—pattern makers, fitters, sheet metal workers, welders and boilermakers—who are finding it hard to get jobs suitable to their skills when they leave the R.O.F. as they have been forced to do.
But my main task is to ask why there should be redundancy at the R.O.F., why there should be this failure on the part of the R.O.F. to get the contracts in competition with private companies. I am not satisfied with the explanations given to me in letters and in the House by the Secretary of State for War. When I ask why the R.O.F. fails to get its share of, for example, the extremely important contract for armoured personnel carriers or of other contracts that go to private firms, it is not enough for the Secretary of State to reply that it is because Woolwich Arsenal is not competitive. It is the Minister who is responsible for the efficiency of the R.O.F. He has had the management and direction of it for many

years. If it is not producing effectively and competitively, whose fault and responsibility is it? It is, of course, the Minister's fault and responsibility. The staff in Woolwich Arsenal are no less hard working, experienced or skilled than others. The land, the buildings and the plant are there. Why, then, is the R.O.F. not competitive, and why is it faced with this serious redundancy of 650 men this year?
These are the questions that I want the Under-Secretary to answer plainly. Will he say why the methods required for costing for tenders by the R.O.F. put it at a disadvantage compared with private firms? I have had talks and correspondence with the Minister on this point, but I am not yet satisfied that the requirements placed on the R.O.F. relating to its costing for its tenders are fair. As we all know, R.O.F.s are required to maintain a certain reserve capacity, a war potential, and this puts them at a great disadvantage as far as the cost of their overheads is concerned as against private firms which do not have the same responsibilities. As we know, there is an allowance for this in the contracts of R.O.F.s But I am not satisfied that the allowance is sufficient. I am not satisfied that these heavy overheads, especially when production is at a low level, as it is and has been, does not place an unfair burden on the R.O.F.s in competition.
That is why I asked the Minister to set up an independent inquiry, particularly into the question of costs and the methods of tendering. This the Secretary of State refused to do, but I understand that a Departmental Committee is now studying this whole question and that its report will be assessed independently by a leading business man, Sir Eric Mensforth. I should like the Under-Secretary to state exactly what are the terms of reference of this Committee and of Sir Eric Mensforth, whether they will have full consultation with representatives of the workers in the Arsenal—for example, with the combined shop stewards' committee—when the report will be issued, and whether it will be published.
May I also ask the Under-Secretary to make clear that the R.O.F. is still a preferred source for the production of conventional arms. Will he also reaffirm that the rôle of the R.O.F. Woolwich is


primarily for experimental and batch production? Can he tell me what plans there are for new tenants in the many buildings on the Arsenal site which are at present unused, and can he also tell me why far more maintenance and repair work on conventional arms and equipment does not go to the R.O.F.?
Part of what we are discussing relates to a bigger picture—the picture of the appalling chaos in our defence policy and the excessive emphasis in our defence policy placed on nuclear as against conventional weapons. If the Government were to do their duty in bringing the equipment and arms of B.A.O.R. up to the standard at which they ought to be, if they were to spend some of the £400 million, which they are preparing to earmark for Polaris submarines, on increasing the conventional strength of our forces, then the outlook for Woolwich Arsenal would be transformed. We are paying the penalty in Woolwich for the defence chaos created by nine different Defence Ministers in the last twelve years.
Now I turn to the question of the apprentices' shop which, we are informed, is to be closed down far a year, and a whole year's intake of apprentices will lapse. This apprentice scheme is an admirable one. It is a model in many ways. It gives to young men a fundamental training—not just a practical but a fundamental training—in their jobs. I want an assurance from the Under-Secretary that if it is the intention to move the site of the apprentice shop it will be done quickly. Two or three months should be enough.
Second, I want an assurance that the shop will be restarted, as before, at the end of the 12 months' period, and finally, that in the meantime it will not remain idle but will be used somehow for apprentice training even if it means bringing in non-governmental apprentices. Surely it is a very bad example to private industry for the Government at this stage to close down facilities for apprentice training when everybody on both sides of the House agrees that we need far more of this training and far more skilled workers in this country.
I also ask the Under-Secretary what is to be the fate of these young men who have gone to work at the Royal Ordnance Factory as pre-apprentice learners? They go there as learners on the understanding

—not the guarantee, but the understanding—that they will become aprpentices in their turn. Now that the apprentice shop is closed for 12 months, what is to happen to those young men? Do they lose their chance of apprenticeship, or will arrangements be made to avoid an obvious injustice in their case?
Finally, I turn to the last point I want to make, the release of War Office land in Woolwich. Over 600 acres of Woolwich Arsenal have been idle and unused for years, the biggest waste of building land in Britain. Today, in the London postal area, one can, if one can avoid the police, shoot rabbits, partridges and pheasants, and fish in the canals. Ministers say they are shortly going to release this land, but they have been saying that for years. Let them hand it over to the L.C.C. immediately and let houses start going up without further delay. There is also other War Office land in Woolwich long overdue for release, for example, the Cambridge Barracks and Red Barracks area, which is urgently needed by the borough council for housing, We are told that it cannot be vacated till rebuilding of the R.A. barracks has been completed, but this rebuilding ought to have been started last year. We are now told—I have have been told by the Secretary of State in a recent letter—that it is not going to be started till next year. This has caused great disappointment in my constituency. We regard the postponement of this final stage of rebuilding as unnecessary and costly, and it is also holding up important development in the borough. I ask the Under-Secretary to give the assurance that rebuilding of the barracks will be speeded up.
These are the points which I put to the Under-Secretary. I hope very much that he will address himself to them in reply and try to give some answers which will reassure my constituents on them.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. Colin Turner: I support the plea the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) has made for the release at the earliest opportunity of War Office land in Woolwich. Some of it is in my own constituency as well. I know my hon. Friend wants to reply and so I shall be brief, but that is the first point I want to make. I would ask whether there has been any further


development of the study made by my right hon. Friend of the possibility of using in some form or another the apprentice training school for either Government or industrial apprentices. This is a very important isue in which I am particularly interested.

10.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State and Financial Secretary for War (Mr. James Ramsden): It would probably be for the convenience of the House if I began by answering some of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) which are immediately connected with the Royal Ordnance Factory and came later to try to reply to his main argument.
I appreciate his anxiety that there should not be any avoidable delay in the rebuilding of the Royal Artillery Barracks at Woolwich, and I know of the anxiety of his constituents about the possibility of acquiring this land for other development, but I am afraid that the position is still broadly as, I understand, was explained to the hon. Gentleman by my right hon. Friend recently. We very much regret the delay, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the original tender for the rebuilding was too high. That has meant replanning and, in addition, our own requirements have turned out to be slightly different from what we anticipated.
As he knows, under present arrangements the next phase of building is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works and I cannot forecast when it will start, but I am afraid that it will be five years or so before Cambridge Barracks can be released. I am glad to say that the position with Red Barracks is a little better and it may be possible to release them in the next year or so. We are also in touch with the council about the possibility of part of Cambridge Barracks being used earlier.
We occupy the land on the west side of the estate, the dockyard, on loan from the Admiralty, and this, too, we are likely to need until full rebuilding of the depot is completed. As soon as it is, the dockyard will be handed back to the Admiralty and will be in its hands to be made available for disposal.
The hon. Member referred to the land to the east of the Royal Ordnance Factory as though we were keeping it as a sporting preserve, not surprisingly from what it looks like now! We are conducting negotiations with London County Council at the moment about the future of this land and, as negotiations are now in train, I think that it is wise for outside parties not to say too much about it, and I intend to stand by that maxim tonight.

Mr. Mayhew: But progress has been so slow and so secret that sometimes I suspect that Ministers are not negotiating over the land but shooting over it.

Mr. Ramsden: I can assure the hon. Member that his suspicions are unfounded. It is not an easy problem and the possible interests of other Government Departments have to be consulted. We hope to make progress with these negotiations with London County Council. The hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolwich, West (Mr. Turner) asked about the position of apprentices. I want to say how much I agree with the hon. Member for Woolwich, East about the value of the apprenticeship training which the Royal Ordnance Factory provides, something of which we are rightly proud. What has happened has been that we have had to suspend the intake of new apprentices at the Royal Ordnance Factory next September, that is, the intake for September, 1963.
The reason for this is purely local and practical. Obviously, the more apprentices there are in a factory, the more skilled craftsmen there are required to look after them and see them through their training. Because of the contraction of the Royal Ordnance Factory, we shall have fewer skilled craftsmen at Woolwich, and we have therefore had to take steps to ensure that the factory does not get over-staffed with apprentices. It would not be fair to them, nor to the people who would be expected to train them.
Having said that, there are one or two other comments on this decision which I should like to make. I can assure hon. Members that it does not prejudice what might happen in future years, and it does not affect the position of present apprentices who are currently


going through their training, even those now in the first year of training shop, and it does not affect what are called pre-apprentice learners, boys who would be indentured as apprentices, but who are not 16 and who cannot by law be allowed to be so indentured. As a matter of fact I believe that the boys in this category who entered the first-year shop in the last intake have now become 16 and are fully indentured, so their position is assured and they will go on and complete their training.
I was asked whether this decision will mean that these excellent first-year training facilities will go into disuse. I am glad to say that we have been able to make arrangements for them to be used for the training of other Government apprentices. I hope that this will be found satisfactory, and on the local aspect I have arranged for the Royal Ordnance Factory Woolwich to inform all those who applied for apprenticeships at that factory of these alternative opportunities and to invite them to submit applications. I hope that this will help.
I come now to the main question raised by the hon. Gentleman, that of the latest redundancies at Woolwich and the question of the future of the group of factories of which Woolwich forms a part. I make no complaint whatever at the hon. Gentleman having taken the opportunity of raising this this evening. He raised it with me during the first fortnight of my tenure of this office, and I am glad to think that in spite of his opening remarks he has been sufficiently satisfied during the last 2½ years for this to be the first opportunity that he has 'taken since then to raise this matter.
We appreciate the hon. Gentleman's interest in this, but I think it is fair to say that this is now not a problem strictly confined to the hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West. I have ascertained that over 40 per cent. of our staff at the R.O.F. come from more than 3 miles away from Woolwich, which in some ways is an improvement, and a rather satisfactory position, and it is a reflection of this that other of my colleagues, notably my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), have been in close touch with me and my right

hon. Friend the Secretary, of State for War about these problems.
Dealing with these redundancies, the hon. Gentleman implied that it was our responsibility to see that these factories are efficient. I accept that, but I think the hon. Gentleman will accept that if efficiency is to mean making savings in overheads and rationalising production, this is bound sometimes to give rise to redundancy. Part of the present redundancy arises from the re-amalgamation of the Royal Arsenal Estate with the factory. Since the Perrott Report in 1954 there has been a separate organisation to provide services like steam, electricity, roads, and so on, for the tenants of the estate, including the factory. This arrangement made good sense when it was instituted when there were 14,000 people in the Arsenal and it was expected that the number would grow, but in practice, and following the changes in defence policy instituted in 1957, things have turned out rather differently. The total population of the complex is now 7,000. Half of this is in the factory, while of the remainder the Estate employees make up almost one-third.
I pay tribute to the work done by the estate organisation. It has done a very good job and discharged its duty admirably, but these numbers that I have quoted can only mean that the estate organisation is now top heavy for what it has to do. The amalgamation started on 1st April, and the present plan is to wind up the estate by the end of 1963, and there will be scope here for economies in administrative overheads as a result of this change.
Then there was the decision that the order for armoured personnel carriers should go complete to industry and no part of it to the R.O.F.s. The hon. Gentleman asked me questions about this, the first of which was, "Do we, in comparing costs in these cases, and in deciding where to allocate orders, give to the R.O.F.s sufficient credit for the spare capacity that they have to maintain in the national interest and which adds to their overheads?"
I have been fully into this matter, and I can assure the hon. Member that we do do so. We have this formula, which my right hon. Friend explained to the hon.


Member in a recent letter, which takes account of the extra cost arising from spare capacity. But I am quite sure that no amount of tinkering with this formula would or could have affected the decision on where this order went. I am quite satisfied about that. The costing system is a well-tried one, which has worked well in the past. If it has imperfections, these make their appearance—as I think the hon. Member suggested—when the factories are working at very low levels of capacity, and I am sure that the right thing to do is not to try tinkering with the formula but to take steps to get the capacity right. That is what we did.
As to why a private firm was successful as against the Royal Ordnance Factory in this case, I cannot say. My hunch is that the firm was more competitive because its normal production is permanently organised to fill this sort of order, with the result that it will be able to do much of the armoured personnel carrier work with a semi-skilled force, and, therefore, much more cheaply than we can with a factory essentially organised as a skilled factory.
The hon. Member's second series of points bore on the future. He asked what our plans were for keeping the Royal Ordnance Factories efficient and competitive. Here I must go back and give the background to the present position. When I first came to the War Office, nearly three years ago, one of my responsibilities was to review the capacity of all the remaining Royal Ordnance Factories. Today we are concerned only with the Weapons and Fighting Vehicle group, among the four groups, and we concluded, after this review that, all being well, we should need the fighting vehicle capacity at Nottingham and Woolwich to make the armoured personnel carrier, but that when this was done with there would be a surplus for which we could foresee no use. We said then that there would be another review in two years' time. That review has had to be put forward, because the loss of the armoured personnel carrier order was the equivalant of three years' work for one factory, and in fact it is going on now. I cannot anticipate the outcome in any detail, but we shall aim at an organisation within

the group which is adequate for the jobs that have to be done. Before a final decision is taken my right hon. Friend will have the independent advice of Sir Eric Mensforth, and we are grateful to him for having undertaken this task.
The hon. Member asked about his terms of reference. We have not finally agreed the terms of reference, but he will give my right hon. Friend private advice on a departmental problem. We have it in mind that he should advise us how this group of factories should be organised, and how many factories it should contain, so as to function economically and, where applicable, competitively. We have not given him formal terms of reference, such as would be appropriate in the case of a committee. We hope that his report, and the outcome of the review, will come forward as soon as possible, because we want to put an end to the present uncertainty as soon as possible. It would not be appropriate for there to be direct consultations between Sir Eric and either the staff side or the unions, but during the progress of this review the normal channels of consultation between those bodies and the Department will be open and available. I hope that as a result of this review we shall be able to achieve some stability in this group of factories.
I now come to what the hon. Member said about efficiency. There ought to be no doubt in the mind of the House that the factories are efficient, but we ought also to remember what they have to be efficient for. They have a specialist job to do, primarily to produce armaments designed in Government research and development establishments for the Government and the Services. It is no reflection on that if it turns out that non-specialist production can sometimes be more cheaply undertaken by outside industry. Our problem now—and it has been a continuing one over the last six years—has been to match the capacity available in the R.O.F.s for this sort of work, which is now too large for the Services' requirements and which, for obvious reasons, has been growing smaller.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for the kind things he said about the arrangements we have been able to make to


handle these redundancies in the past. We regret that this one is having to take place, but we must face the facts. Not all the capacity in the Weapons and Fighting Vehicle Group is now required,

and it would be wrong to run away from this problem.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven o'clock.